Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan at ObamaCare Summit
When Wilson yelled - YOU LIE! - to Obama, he was telling the TRUTH.
ObamaCare is CONTROL, EUGENICS, not health
Key points made by Mr. Ryan are -
· CBO has told us they cannot yet estimate the Presidents plan because it lacks detail. But because it closely aligns with the Senate bill lets unpack the Senate bills CBO score.
· The Majority claims credit for reducing the deficit by $131 billion over 10 years. Thats less than this months deficit.
· This is the result of six years of spending, paid for by ten years of tax increases and Medicare cuts. The true ten year cost when subsidies kick-in? $2.3 trillion.
· The bill is full of gimmicks that more than erase the false claim of deficit reduction:
o $52 billion of savings is claimed by counting increased Social Security payroll revenues. These dollars are already claimed for future Social Security beneficiaries, and claiming to offset the cost of this bill either means were double-counting or were not going to pay Social Security benefits.
o $72 billion in savings is claimed from the CLASS Act long-term care insurance. These so-called savings are not offsets, but rather premiums collected to pay for future benefits. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has called these savings, A ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
· Additionally, the nearly half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts cannot be counted twice. Medicare is in dire need of reform in order to make certain that we can ensure health security for future seniors.
· Using Medicare as a piggy bank, it raids a half trillion dollars from retirees health coverage to fund the creation of another open-ended health care entitlement.
· The Presidents chief Medicare actuary says up to 20% of Medicare providers may go bankrupt or stop taking Medicare beneficiaries as a result. Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage they now enjoy.
· Objections to the policy aside, you cannot use these savings twice to both extend the life of Medicare and to pay for other spending. The half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts are either to extend the programs solvency or to reduce the cost of this deficit but not both as its authors claim.
· When you strip away the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the so-called savings from Social Security payroll taxes and the CLASS Act, the deficit increases by $460 billion over first ten years and $1.4 trillion over second ten years.
· Finally, one of the most expensive and most cynical of the gimmicks applies to Medicare physician payments, the so-called Doc Fix.
· By the Administrations own estimate, the Doc Fix adds an additional $371 billion to the cost of health care reform. With the price tag beyond what most Americans could handle, the Majority decided to simply remove this costly provision and deal with it in a stand-alone bill.
Ignoring this additional cost does not remove it from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending doesnt reduce spending
Paul Ryan website
Series on youtube
DO WE DISTRUST OUR GOVERNMENT?
A GOLD TAX is hiddin in ObamaCare - plus more
Andrew Napolitano on Challenging the Health Care Bill
You’re in for an unpleasant surprise:
OBAMACARE * A System from HELL
Posted <*)))>< by
ZionsCRY NEWS with Prophetic Commentary
ZionsCRY Summary of Feb ObamaCare SummitObamaCare
Govt-Run HealthCare BACK from the DEAD
Obama proved himself an arrogant fool Feb 25, 2010
at the 7 hour heathcare summit with republicans.
4 heroes emerged
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan
Senators Eric Cantor and Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn.
DEMS SPEAK 233 MINS VS. 114 MINS FOR REPUBLICANS.
Despite constant interruptions from 0bama, the Repubs were intellegent, rational, fact-based, with excellent points and questions.
0bama actually attacked his own bill when he wouldnt allow one Senator to read an excerpt from it!!!
GOD FORBID AMERICANS KNOW WHAT THIS EVIL WHITEHOUSE IS PLANNING FOR US!!
Lamar Alexander brought up this summit was a waste of time if 0bama, Reid and Pelosi were just going
to ram thru healthcare anyway. This made 0bama furious! And showed his unwillingness to be bipartisan
0bama usurped MUCH time, he is a dicktator, not a statesman. The Republicans have a good plan, they won,
Obama lost, Obama filibustered, Obama closed with a threat.
This damned Obama will ram thru healthcare, against the
Republicans in Congress and against the wishes of the American people.
Whenever Obama is on TV lying again, the Dow stock market falls.
We Cant Afford This
Lawmakers Remain Divided at healthcare summit
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
Obama Health CareObama HELLth Care
The bill from hell - the Congress from hell
This whitehouse from hell!!
DEMONcrats TO RAHM-THROUGH HELLthcare!
This bill is under 0bama's signature - and there is NOTHING Republicans can do about it.
The U.S. Senate newest Republican Scott Brown turned traitor and voted YES on Dems jobs bill.
Obama is charting a dangerous unAmerican course that imperils our future.
Massachusetts RINO Brown Joins Senate Demoncrats, SNUBS Repubs
Obama Policies Not American
No surprise, Obama is African, born in Kenya
Abortion language in bill
Page 11 on health care plan does NOT explicitly ban the use of federal funds for abortions.
Obama had promised no federal dollars would be used to kill babies.
ANOTHER 0BAMA LIE
The bill's funding restriction allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive federal subsidies.
One baby in 30 left alive after abortion
Republicans to Crash the Party
House Minority Leader John Boehner told Republicans "We need to show up and crash the party" at Obama's televised
health summit. Demoncrat leaders admit that they may not be able to pass the health care overhaul.
I pray NOT. 0care will hurt everyone and help no one.
It will destroy the healthcare Amerika has now.
"We shouldn't let the White House have a 6 hour taxpayer-funded infomercial on ObamaCare."
Obama is addicted to lying
ObamaCare, Letter from a doctorObamaCare Letter from a doctor
April 1 UPDATE - A radio talk show host said this is a HOAX.
Maybe - maybe not. DONT TRUST SNOPES - EVER!
February 28, 2010
This letter appeared in the Indianapolis Star (owned by the same people who own the Arizona Republic) and was sent to Indiana Senator Bayh.
An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the ObamaCare Bill
Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh
Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser
Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death.
(Also called 'assisted suicide.') (Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans..
(AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully, Stephen E. Fraser, MD
* Probably a duplicate but I left it here
States Pre-empting Ocare
States Pre-empting Ocare
36 states kill mandatory Obamacare
36 legislatures fight for citizens rights to opt out of health-coverage demand
March 09, 2010
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and outspoken critic of the individual mandate, told CNS News that if Congress can force Americans to buy health care, or mandate the purchase of anything, "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."
At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama's health-care "reform" – an "individual mandate" requiring that all Americans have health insurance.
Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person's income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a
flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher.
Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
Join nearly 100 members of Congress and 13,000 Americans in rejecting federal government health-care mandates on patients,
employers, individuals and states – sign on to the Declaration of Health Care Independence.
"The president's proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments,
and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured," a White House plan released in February states.
Hero States rejecting 'individual mandate'
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Also, as of March 4, Virginia became the first state to enact a new statute section titled, "Health insurance coverage not required." In Arizona, voters will cast ballots on a constitutional amendment in November 2010 that would "preserve the freedom of all residents of the state to provide for their own health care."
Lawmakers suggest approval of the legislation may spark a legal battle over states' rights versus the federal government's reach of power. The Boston Globe reported the measures could set the stage for "one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era."
"The administration is trying to shift from a government by social compact, agreement between elected officials and citizens, to a government where the leaders tell the subjects what to do," Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, chief sponsor of the measure in his state, told the Globe. "That is not what the American Revolution was about."
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has sparked nationwide interest with its model "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: How Your State Can Block Single-Payer and Protect patients' Rights." ALEC warns that forcing patients to enroll in one-size-fits-all plans would cause massive increases in spending and force policymakers to ration care as a cost-containment measure.
Is mandatory insurance constitutional?
Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer told the New York Times in September 2009 that lawmakers in his state have proposed a state constitutional amendment to protect citizens from government interference in their private health decisions.
"All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health-care decisions," Emmer said. "I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors."
He said an amendment wouldn't prohibit anyone from participating in a federal health program. It would simply prevent them from being forced to enroll.
"[T]ell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care," Emmer said. "This is the essence of the debate."
During the Democratic presidential primary, Obama took a jab at Hillary Clinton over the individual mandate.
"The main difference between my plan and Sen. Clinton's plan," he said, "is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't."
According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the federal government has never mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. In 1994, the CBO studied the individual mandate in Clinton's universal health-care plan and found that it was an unprecedented requirement.
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO report stated. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."
Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate.
"People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can't fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause," he wrote.
Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax.
"It can't be an excise tax because that's a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything," he explained. "It can't be a capitation (or 'direct') tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can't be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions."
He added, "All that's left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government's problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game."
Likewise, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that determining whether an individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause "is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."
Klukowski wrote that if Obama wants a plan that forces Americans to purchase insurance, he will need to "persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care."
He added, "You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning."
Honestly - I don't think this "universal health care" will happen until the AC makes his emergence. Ditto the peace process in the ME - I can't imagine any current living being(whether it's Javier Solana, Tony Blair, Obama, or whoever) that can pull this off.
Of course, we need to keep praying against this wicked, but JMHO.
Can Pelosi Get the VotesCan Pelosi Get the Votes?
March 11, 2010
Are there enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's health-care bill?
As of today, it's clear there aren't.
House Democratic leaders have brushed aside White House calls to bring the bill forward by March 18, when President Barack Obama heads to Asia.
Nevertheless, analysts close to the Democratic leadership tell me they're confident the leadership will find some way to squeeze out the 216 votes needed for a majority.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indeed shown mastery at amassing majorities. But it's hard to see how she'll do so on this one. The arithmetic as I see it doesn't add up.
The House passed its version of the health bill in November by 220-215. Of those 220, one was a Republican who now is a no. One Democrat who voted yes has died, two Democrats who voted yes have resigned, and one Democrat who voted no has resigned as well. So if everyone but the Republican votes the way they did four months ago, the score would be 216-215.
But not everyone is ready to vote that way. The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won't vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota's James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.
Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn't have more than 10, or she wouldn't have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.
But that's not enough—and there are other complications. Voting for the Senate bill means voting for the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase—the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid for the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It's not hard to imagine the ads Republicans could run attacking House members for sending money to Nebraska and Louisiana but not their home states.
To be sure, Democratic leaders say they want to repair the Senate bill by subsequent legislation that could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate under the reconciliation process. But they have yet to produce such a bill. It can't include the Stupak amendment, which experts say doesn't qualify for the reconciliation process. And there's no way they can credibly promise the Senate will pass it. Senate rules allow many forms of obstruction. The reconciliation process is littered with traps.
There is also the House's historic lack of trust in the Senate, which is on display by Democrats who voted yes in November. "No, I don't trust the U.S. Senate," Wisconsin's Steve Kagen told WLUK-TV in Green Bay, this week. New York's Dan Maffei was quoted in the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that "I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate."
"I am not inclined to support the Senate version," Nevada's Shelley Berkley told the New York Times last week. "I would like something more than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a paper bag." Her district voted 64% for Barack Obama.
Other Democrats who voted yes seem to be wavering. "I don't think reconciliation is a good idea," Indiana's Baron Hill was quoted recently in Bloomberg News. New York's Michael Arcuri says he's a no for now. "There would have to be some dramatic changes in it for me to change my position," he recently told the Utica Observer-Dispatch.
"I think we can do better," California's Dennis Cardoza told the New York Times last week. "If the Senate bill is not fixed, that"—voting no—"is not a flip-flop," Nevada's Dina Titus told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week. "I see that as standing by your convictions." Most of these members represent districts which went Republican some time in the past decade—and could easily do so again if national polls are an indicator.
There's a more fundamental problem for the Democratic leadership: Their majority is not as strong as their 253-178 margin suggests.
A Democratic House majority tends to have fewer members with safe seats than a Republican majority. Consider that in 2005 Speaker Dennis Hastert had 214 Republican members elected in districts Mr. Bush carried, just four seats short of a majority. Today Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 208 Democratic members elected in districts Mr. Obama carried, eight seats short of a majority.
The Democratic bedrock is actually slightly smaller than the Republican bedrock was four years ago, even though the Democrats have 31 more members. That's partly because of Republican gerrymandering earlier in the decade, but it's more because Democratic voters tend to be bunched in relatively few districts. Mr. Obama carried 28 districts with 80% or more; John McCain didn't reach that percentage in any district.
A lot of Democrats—most Black Caucus members and many "gentry liberals" (to use urban scholar Joel Kotkin's term) like Mrs. Pelosi—are elected in overwhelmingly Democratic districts. This means there aren't that many faithful Democratic voters to spread around to other seats.
As a result, more than 40 House Democrats represent districts which John McCain carried. Most voted no in November and would presumably be hurt by switching to yes now. Moreover, Mr. Obama's job approval now hovers around 48%, five points lower than his winning percentage in 2008. His approval on health care is even lower.
Another 32 House Democrats represent districts where Mr. Obama won between 50% and 54% of the vote, and where his approval is likely to be running under 50% now. That leaves just 176 House Democrats from districts where Mr. Obama's approval rating is not, to borrow a real-estate term, under water. That's 40 votes less than the 216 needed.
"If there is a path to 216 votes, I am confident the Speaker will find it," writes Bush White House legislative strategy analyst Keith Hennessey on his blog. "She has a remarkable ability to bend her colleagues to her will." True, but perhaps that ability has led Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill to embark on what will be remembered as a mission impossible.
Mrs. Pelosi, whom I have known for almost 30 years, may turn out to be even shrewder than I think. But she may be facing a moment as flummoxing as the one when Democratic Speaker Thomas Foley lost the vote on the rule to consider the crime and gun control bill in August 1994, or when Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert saw the Mark Foley scandal explode on the last day of the session in September 2006. Both were moments when highly competent and dedicated House speakers saw their majorities shattered beyond repair.
That moment, if it comes, will occur some time between now and the Easter recess. The Democrats' struggle to get 216 votes is high stakes poker.
Senate Health Care Bill Dead on ArrivalSenate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival
say Pro-Life House Democrats
We'll see ....
March 11, 2010
The health care reform bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve appears to be dead on arrival in the House, as seven anti-abortion Democrats intend to join the ranks of lawmakers who plan to vote against the legislation
7 new 'NO' votes would be enough to kill the Senate bill, and several more fence-sitting lawmakers are under pressure from both sides of the aisle.
Foremost among the seven new no votes is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., whose anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the legislation got the bill passed in that chamber last year.
But because the Senate and House Democratic leaders weren't able to agree on joint legislation before losing their supermajority in the Senate this year, they have few options other than getting the House to pass the Senate bill and then making changes to the law through a separate budget reconciliation bill that could pass with simple majorities.
The Senate bill, however, doesn't contain the same language as the Stupak amendment, which explicitly prohibits federal funding of abortion in any of the reform measures intended to expand health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
The House bill passed by a slim majority last year. In addition to Stupak, Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois has gone on the record as changing his vote to no if asked to pass the Senate bill, which some argue doesn't do enough to forbid tax-funded abortions. "Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle," Lipinski said.
Other Democratic representatives who voted yes on the House bill but are on record as opposing the Senate bill are James Oberstar of Minnesota, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Marion Berry of Arkansas.
Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana is the latest to join them, and Stupak said there may be more.
"Unless the language changes, there's at least 12 Democrats who have said they could not vote for health care unless we keep the current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak told Fox News.
Others who are potential new no votes are Reps. Brad Ellsworth Indiana, Jerry Costello of Illinois, Charlie Wilson and Tim Ryan of Ohio, Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.
The House bill contains a ban on tax-funded abortion, which has been the law of the land for more than 30 years.
The Senate bill is a big change, say critics. It would require women to have a separate private insurance policy if they want abortion coverage, but contains no explicit ban on tax-funded abortion as the House bill does.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Democrats' lead pro-choice negotiator, is noncommittal about any changes that would be made to the Senate bill.
"They'd like to change it, that may be changed, but it may have to be changed at some future time. That's been my view but nothing has been resolved," he said.
The health care legislation passed the House last year on a 220-215 vote. But since then, four "yes" votes from Democrats have departed: Reps. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and Robert Wexler of Florida resigned. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania died last month and Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama switched parties and said he will not support the bill.
Former Democratic Rep. Eric Massa of New York, who voted against the legislation last year, resigned this week.
That means passage of the Senate bill now requires a 216-vote threshold.
"I would not vote for it," Donnelly told the Rochester Sentinel on Tuesday. "From my reading of it, it does permit federal funding for abortion related services, in the Senate bill as it stands today, and so that is a fatal flaw in my opinion."
An unnamed Democrat told Fox News that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "smart enough to realize" that without the Stupak Amendment in November, "the bill fails."
"The debate is just like it was before," the Democrat said.
Shortcut to socialismShortcut to socialism
March 13, 2010
The official title is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (bill text here), popularly known as "Obamacare," passed by the Senate in the wee-hours of Christmas Eve. This 2,400-page monstrosity does what no enemy of America has ever been able to do: transform the land of the free into the home of the enslaved.
For the first time in the history of the nation, the federal government will force its citizens to purchase a product.
If Americans – through their elected officials – accept this principle, there is nothing to prevent the federal government from forcing its citizens to purchase any other product the government decides its citizens should have.
Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to require its citizens to purchase anything. The writers of this bill, however, conclude that even though insurance sales may be limited by each state, health insurance is still sold across state lines, and therefore is subject to federal regulations under the commerce clause, and that regulatory authority includes the authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not.
Individuals who fail to purchase the required insurance will be fined 1/12 of the annual cost of the required insurance with penalties "not to exceed 300 percent"(Chapter 48, Section 5000A, page 321 ff).
As bad as this legislation is, it is just the first step toward a much worse condition: government control of health care.
That's the plan.
Like a master snake-oil salesman, Obama loudly condemns the horrible insurance companies that increase rates and make profits, as the reason the government must act to provide relief to consumers.
He ignores the fact that increased rates are required to pay the increased costs of providing health-care service. He ignores the fact that much of the increased cost of service is the unintended consequence of government's involvement in health care.
There are two primary reasons why health care is unaffordable for some citizens: 1) the misguided belief of some that everyone has a "right" to health care; and 2) government's efforts to provide health care to everyone, including people who are in our country illegally.
In its effort to provide more health care to more people, the government has distorted the market, and the consequence has been removal of the cost factor from the consumer. In a free market, the consumer is king. It is the purchase that triggers the flow of money. Providers compete for the consumer's purchase by offering products and services at prices low enough to incite the consumer to act. Consumers shop and compare, denying dollars to providers whose price is too high or service is too low.
Enter the government. Medicare offers an excellent example. Consumers no longer care about price. The cost of service is not a deterrent. Consumers are thereby encouraged to consume at will. Providers no longer care about winning the customer's purchase; the government will pay. Moreover, the government will pay what the government wants to pay, so there is no incentive for the provider to compete in price or service. Since government is paying a fixed fee for products and services, suppliers throughout the system seek ways to maximize payment. Over time, they get really good at it. That's why the actual cost of Medicare has vastly outstripped its estimated costs.
These increased costs permeate the industry and apply to non-Medicare patients as well. That's why insurance companies are forced to increase rates. In a real free market, consumers would be able to shop different insurance companies to find the best service at the best rate.
Enter the government – again. Government limits the choices consumers have. Obamacare will limit private choices even further by imposing regulations that will force private companies out of business.
When government is paying for health care, government dictates the quantity, quality and price of the care. The costs that are not extracted as premiums or co-pay will be extracted as increased taxes.
When government is paying for health care, there are no choices, there are no options. Every life is subject to whatever requirements the government may choose to impose. Smokers, for example, could be denied certain services – should the government so decide. Overweight people could be denied certain services unless they meet government-imposed weight limits. Seniors could be denied life-extending procedures should the government decide that the cost is greater than the benefit.
Perhaps the worst consequence of Obamacare is the expansion of a culture that depends upon government; that teaches that government can bestow rights, whether to health care, education, a living wage, or all the other so-called rights listed in the socialists' agenda.
Obamacare, if enacted, is indeed a shortcut to socialism.
Save the nation – kill the billSave the nation - kill the bill
March 13, 2010
It may sound contradictory, but I am thankful that the Senate refused to include the Stupak language (prohibiting funding for abortion) in the health-care reform bill sent to the House, because it may now serve as the "poison pill" that will bring the whole, ungodly mess to a stop – at least for now.
According to Rep. Mike Pence, National Right to life and other pro-life leaders nationwide, this would be the most pro-abortion bill to pass Congress in our history.
The Heritage Foundation analysis concludes:
First, let's be clear that the Senate bill allows tax dollars to be used for abortions. According to Chuck Donovan of The Heritage Foundation, the Senate-passed Obamacare bill funds abortion in several ways, even creating an appropriation for Community Health Centers that contains no restriction on abortion subsidies. If the Senate version of Obamacare is passed by the House and sent to the president, then the House has consented to the federal funding of abortion.
In addition, the "conscience clause" that allows doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions without losing funding is intentionally absent. This bill and the agenda of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been clearly exposed as having nothing to do with addressing legitimate reforms regarding affordability and availability of health care.
The historic about-face in having millions of taxpayers fund the taking of innocent life, escalating the rate and frequency of abortions and further enslaving women of all ages to the physical, emotional and spiritual trauma produced by it is tragic. However, it is just a part of the catastrophe of this legislation.
While focusing on the abortion-funding aspect is vital, we also run the risk of yielding the ground that this legislation would be disastrous in every way even without that very unpopular and morally bankrupt provision included.
The predatory effect of government bureaucrats making decisions, competing with private insurance and turning doctors into government employees will destroy the best health-care system in the world and put the already damaged economy into a tailspin. The Democratic leadership clearly does not care and is working on an insidious plan to bypass a full House vote.
The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate-passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote. The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate Obamacare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure. (emphasis added)
Included in its nearly uncountable flaws, are (according to a Cato Institute Report):
* Millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.
* Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.
* They … increase the likelihood of government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
Since it is well-established by poll after poll that an increasing number of the American people do not want this bill (48 percent oppose vs. 40 percent support) and that it will clearly do more damage than good – why are Democrats rushing like lemmings over the cliff of political suicide?
It is because, like most of the radical leftist agenda, this has nothing to do with the "false front" issue used to appeal to the emotions. This is about seizing control of the "sword" of governmental power/force to eradicate free-market economics, private ownership of property, freedom of religion, etc., and march us straight into "Das Kapital."
The committed Marxists like President Obama, Rahm Emanuel and their Chicago machine driving this locomotive are using the run-of-the-mill liberals like Reid and Pelosi as human shields – and like their counterparts of radical Islam are committed to the objective at any cost.
Compare that dedication to the majority of pastors who are more concerned about our precious nonprofit status, pleasing people or even creating a "New Christianity" (e.g. emergent guru Brian McLaren) than being obedient to the word and call of God.
I pray that we stop Obamacare and trust that we will – however, I have a greater prayer. I pray that we will not expect that killing this bill and even changing the majority in Congress will change the nation. I pray as the apostle Paul prayed:
And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God (Philippians 1:9-11).
A people who have accepted that government, not God, is our provider and who have elected people to fulfill that philosophy, should not be shocked when our Frankenstein breaks free and runs amok. Remember the words of President James Garfield:
If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture and the morality of the nation (note: We the People) do not aid in controlling the political forces. (Federer, "America's God & Country")
Obama's Proposal is the Illusion of ReformObama's Proposal is the Illusion of Reform
March 15, 2010 By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON - One job of presidents is to educate Americans about crucial national problems. On health care, Barack Obama has failed. Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong. Great simplicities and distortions have been peddled in the name of achieving "universal health coverage." The miseducation has worsened as the debate approaches its climax.
There's a parallel here: housing. Most Americans favor homeownership, but uncritical pro-homeownership policies (lax lending standards, puny down payments, hefty housing subsidies) helped cause the financial crisis. The same thing is happening with health care. The appeal of universal insurance -- who, by the way, wants to be uninsured? -- justifies half-truths and dubious policies. That the process is repeating itself suggests that our political leaders don't learn even from proximate calamities.
How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it's said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That's expensive and ineffective. Once they're insured, they'll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it's untrue.
A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency room use remained higher than the national average, reports an Urban Institute study. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get (a doctor's) appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency room use may increase.
You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation's health. The uninsured don't get care or don't get it soon enough. With insurance, they won't be shortchanged; they'll be healthier. Simple.
Think again. I've written before that expanding health insurance would result, at best, in modest health gains. Studies of insurance's effects on health are hard to perform. Some find benefits; others don't. Medicare's introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn't find gains. Economics writer Megan McArdle of The Atlantic examined the literature and emerged skeptical. Claims that the uninsured suffer tens of thousands of premature deaths are "open to question." Conceivably, the "lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance," she writes.
How could this be? No one knows, but possible explanations include: (a) many uninsured are fairly healthy -- about two-fifths are between 18 and 34; (b) some are too sick to be helped or have problems rooted in personal behaviors -- smoking, diet, drinking or drug abuse; and (c) the uninsured already receive about 50 percent to 70 percent of the care of the insured from hospitals, clinics and doctors, estimates the Congressional Budget Office.
Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health care system's major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health "reform" would likely increase that.
Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains.
He's telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it already has.
"If not now, when? If not us, who?" Obama asks. The answer is: It's not now, and it's not "us." Pass or not, Obama's proposal is the illusion of "reform," not the real thing.
ObamaCare and EugenicsObamaCare and Eugenics
How abortion subsidies threaten reproductive liberty.
MARCH 15, 2010
National Review's Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote "no" if it includes subsidies for abortion:
Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. "I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance," he says. "Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered." The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, "are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."
What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue--come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."
Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about "life" for a while--the Democratic leaders' position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.
What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient--a cost-cutting measure.
The first thing one must say about this position is that when stated categorically, it is nonsense. Sure, babies are expensive. But from society's standpoint, that expense is a necessary investment--the only way to produce the next generation of productive adults. A society in which babies are a net long-term cost--in which the average person consumes more over his lifetime than he produces--is unsustainable. A policy aimed at reducing the number of babies born would be economically ruinous, because within a few decades it would result in a shortage of workers and taxpayers.
But as a matter of cold cost-benefit analysis, not all babies are equal. Some are costlier than others, and not all grow into productive adults. In particular, certain disabilities and diseases are very expensive to treat and limit productive adulthood by causing either early death or lifelong dependency.
In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.
Getting government into the eugenics business would have disturbing implications for reproductive liberty. What would happen to a woman who received, say, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? She would be free (as she is today) to exercise her right to have an abortion. But would she be free to exercise her right not to have an abortion?
Presumably the government could not directly force her to abort, as this would provoke political outrage and run afoul of Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings. But one can easily imagine softer forms of coercion coming into play. A government-run insurance plan, for instance, could deny or limit coverage for the treatment of certain conditions if diagnosed before fetal viability, on the ground that the taxpayer should not be forced to pay the costs of the woman's choice to carry her child to term. Perhaps the courts would find this an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, but that does not strike us as an open-and-shut case.
Pro-choice advocates have argued that even persuasive measures aimed at curtailing abortion are objectionable, although the Supreme Court has disagreed. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court by a 7-2 vote upheld a Pennsylvania law mandating "that counselors provide women seeking abortions with information concerning alternatives to abortion, the availability of medical assistance benefits, and the possibility of child support payments."
It's not hard to imagine the federal government's establishing counseling protocols designed to encourage abortion in certain situations--for example, informing a woman after a Down syndrome diagnosis of the burdens (but not the joys) of rearing a child with that condition. This seems no less an infringement of reproductive liberty than the Pennsylvania law to which the pro-choice side objects.
For Bart Stupak, who believes abortion is a form of homicide, opposing abortion subsidies is an easy choice. But those who are pro-choice--as opposed to pro-abortion--should object as strongly to government policies designed to encourage abortion as to those intended to discourage it. "Keep your cost-cutting measures off my body!" may not become the new pro-choice rallying cry, but it should.
'A Threat to Our Democracy'
* "Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don't vote our way on this bill, we're going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy. It's going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it's something we have to push back vigorously on."--White House aide David Axelrod on ABC's "This Week," March 14
* "At the same time, Obama intends to lobby wavering House Democrats to vote for a Senate version of the [ObamaCare] legislation and to support the subsequent reconciliation process, which Republicans have characterized as an unjustified use of majority power. Among the rewards Obama is ready to offer, White House officials said, are election-year visits to competitive congressional districts, where a presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds."--Washington Post, March 11
EgomaniacLeft-Liberal or Egomaniac?
Peter Beinart's take on the Obama presidency now is changing by the day. On Friday we noted that between November 2008 and this month, Beinart had gone from confidently predicting that the then president-elect would usher in "a new liberal era" with wide political support to saying that Obama had "his mojo back" because he has given up on transcending partisanship.
Beinart's latest analysis is similar to last week's, though perhaps more critical in tone. He contrasts Obama's approach with that of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council, which avoided hard-left policies for fear of alienating voters. To the DLC Democrats, Beinart writes, "being a liberal is like walking past a bear":
Move cautiously and reassuringly and the bear will purr contentedly. But make any sudden or threatening gestures, and you'll be mauled because, fundamentally, the bear distrusts liberals. . . .
Obama has embraced polarization over triangulation. He has chosen Karl Rove's politics of base mobilization over Dick Morris's politics of crossover appeal, with consequences not merely for how he campaigns for Democrats in 2010, but for he campaigns for himself in 2012. And that's a disaster for "don't scare the bear" Democrats whether Obamacare passes or not. The reason is that the DLC wing of the party is much more top-down than the MoveOn wing. It has always wielded influence primarily through elected leaders rather than grassroots activists. But today, Obama is the only leader in the Democratic Party who really matters. As the retirement of Evan Bayh illustrates, there are few nationally prominent DLC-aligned politicians left. (The one person who could have rallied that faction of the party against Obama is now his secretary of state). The DLC wing's best hope for relevance, therefore, was that Obama himself would restrain the party's base, that his White House would nurture a new generation of centrist candidates.
That hope is now gone. From top to bottom, Democrats have decided to bet the party's future on the belief that Americans prefer bold liberals to cautious ones. Now it's up to the bear.
Writing at Forbes.com, Shikha Dalmia offers a complementary analysis that focuses on Obama's character:
Egged on by the progressive punditocracy, Democrats are behaving as if, once they jam ObamaCare through, nothing else matters. It's like they'll never have to worry about being the minority party in need of constitutional checks and balances.
A sensible president would of course step in and provide some adult supervision to a wayward party hell-bent on jumping off this cliff. But the problem is that President Obama believes in his own messianism too deeply for that. His goal is not to remake his party as it could be but "remake this world as it should be." In his book Dreams From My Father Obama gives the distinct impression that his gifts are too great for the smallness of our political stage. He regrets not having been born during the civil rights era when the grandness of the cause would have measured up to the grandness of his ambition. He is in search of something big that will allow him to make his mark on the world as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King did. Hence, the defeat of ObamaCare would not just be par for the course in the rough-and-tumble world of politics for him. It would be sign of his ordinariness, his mortality, and that, to him, is unendurable.
Taken together, Beinart's and Dalmia's analyses are the best explanation we've heard for the administration's reckless overreach. Americans who thought they were voting for someone calm and thoughtful got an ideologically extreme egomaniac instead. It makes all the more laughable Eleanor Clift's advice to Democrats seeking re-election this year:
Don't forget Bush. One way to mitigate Democratic losses in November is to remind voters of what they rejected. That's what Reagan did in '82. His ace in the hole, says Brookings Institution scholar Bill Galston, was the vivid memories of the Carter years--the gas lines and hyperinflation, to which nobody wanted to return. "Why would we want to go back?" Reagan asked.
Though Republicans lost 26 House seats in 1982, maybe Clift is right that this approach forestalled worse losses. But will reminding people of the Bush years really be effective in 2010? Apart from the situation in Iraq, is there any way in which things are better today than in '08? What's more, one consequence of Obama's ubiquity and willfulness is that Bush now seems a distant memory--a memory, surprising as it is to say, of simpler, stabler times.
The press has fallen "out of love" with President Obama, Howard Fineman of Newsweek declares in a highly revealing column:
The "mainstream media" are losing patience with, and even interest in, their erstwhile hero. President Barack Obama never had a chance with the Ailes-Murdoch crowd, of course, and it didn't take the president long to offend the fierce left wing of the blogosphere. But now, finally, the MSM, which views itself as ideologically neutral, has found ideologically neutral reasons to lose patience with him: that he may be ineffectual; that he doesn't know how to play the game; that he can't get anything done. Exhibit A: the health-care bill. The [New York] Times's Frank Rich, the astute dean of the commentariat, wrote recently that Obama has failed to "communicate a compelling narrative" in office and, as a result, "could be toast if he doesn't make good on a year's worth of false starts."
If the "mainstream media" is "ideologically neutral," does it ever experience "love" for a conservative politician, or view such a pol as a "hero"? But the fact that Frank Rich, a splenetic left-liberal former theater critic, is "Exhibit A" here rather undermines the claim of neutrality, does it not?
Other Than That, Mary Jo Kopechne Could Not Be Reached for Comment
"A profile of Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) in the March 12 Style section misidentified the location where his father, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), drove off a bridge in 1969 in an accident in which his female passenger drowned. Chappaquiddick is in Massachusetts, not New York."--correction, Washington Post, March 13
1/3 of Doctors May Quit1/3 of Doctors May Quit
A Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, New England Journal of Medicine Says.
Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases.
Recently, Dennis Kucinich got on AF1 with Obama...hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm.............I wonder what Obama did to hypnotize/threaten Kucinich to support this bill? Supposedly, Kucinich has been one of the very few Congressional members standing up to the NWO for years.
Fineman: Kucinich a Yes on Healthcare Reform
by Jonathan Singer, Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 08:53:27 PM EDT
Via National Review online editor John McCormack and The Hill reporter Jordan Fabian, Howard Fineman apparently reported tonight that Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, previously a no on healthcare reform, will vote aye. If this report pans out -- and we should know for certain by tomorrow morning, when Kucinich is slated to hold a press conference -- the Democrats would have their first announced no-to-yes switcher on healthcare reform. The goal of 216 is looking increasingly achievable for Nancy Pelosi.
Deem and pass or demon passDeem and pass or demon pass
March 17, 2010
Nancy Pelosi calls it deem and pass but the phrase sure sounds more like Demon Pass. And the sound of what the DEMONcrats propose is closer to the truth.
Nancy Pelosi calls it "deem and pass," but the phrase sure sounds more like "Demon Pass." And the ‘sound' of what the Democrats propose is closer to the truth; our nation stands atop a mountain divide, and the populace waits to learn if we will continue our trek along a sun-drenched ridge, or if we will plunge headlong into a cold valley oppressed by fog and mist.
We stand at a Demon Pass. Which way will we go?
As Politico tells it:
"If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don't do it,'" said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. "What does ‘deem' mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.' 'Deems' means it's not true."
"To be sure," he continued, "each house has the power to make its own rules. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another." He cited the line-item veto as his primary precedent on the grounds that it disregarded the constitutional procedure for enacting laws.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin agreed that, under the precedents, "the House has to step up and take responsibility for passing the same text as appears in the Senate bill." But, he said, "if they do that, then the precise mechanism (two bills or use of a self-executing rule) isn't as important. One of the purposes of requiring passage of the same bill by both Houses of Congress is to prevent congressmen and senators from attempting to deny responsibility for the laws that they pass by sending the president different bills."
Scholars seem to agree that a small number of Supreme Court decisions may decide this issue, among them Clinton v. City of New York from 1998. If that is true, language from that case may apply:
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, defined the procedure in the line-item case as having three steps: approval of a bill by one house, approval of the "exact text" by the other house, and a presidential signature. "The constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law,'" he wrote.
So, as a nation we stand atop Demon Pass
on one side lies the Constitution, and on the other -
And lest your heart grow faint and you fear the report heard in the land, for a report shall come ONE YEAR, and after that, in ANOTHER YEAR a report shall come, and VIOLENCE in the land, RULER AGAINST RULER.
Universal Health care raised it's ugly head during the Clinton administration in the year 1994 and was dubbed "Hillary Care" and eventually failed and became a "rumor". Fifteen years later in the year 2009, the Obama administration has for the past 14 months tried to 'push' it through.
Now with there backs to the wall, Obama, Reed and Pelosi are trying to "deem" this through without a "up and down" vote. If they pass it through the 'back door', expect an upheaval of outrage from the conservatives, fulfilling the "ruler against ruler" part of the text.
If it becomes a "rumor" and doesn't pass expect the 'SEIU' union thugs and Move on.org to bring violence to our streets like we saw in Greece last week, fulfilling the "violence in the land" part of the text.
Imagine this scenario playing out in our cities, could this force martial law to be declared in our nation?
We shall see
House leaders joust over use of parliamentary ruleHouse leaders joust over use of parliamentary rule
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, arrives at a Democratic Caucus.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor walks to a caucus on Capitol Hill.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say Wednesday if Democrats have enough votes to pass historic health care legislation, but hinted that they're poised to use an arcane parliamentary process to get it done.
Hoyer's Republican counterpart, Rep. Eric Cantor, acknowledged that such a process is permissible under House rules. Under the procedure, a Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if House members voted in favor of a rule governing a separate bill with amendments to it.
Cantor, R-Va., said he couldn't understand why Democrats would use such a parliamentary detour with a bill of this magnitude and reach.
Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" to say if he had the 216 votes necessary to pass the legislation in the House, Hoyer, D-Md., replied, "I don't have a precise number. Having said that, we think we'll get the votes. We think we will have the votes when the roll is called."
Appearing on the same show, Cantor asserted: "They don't have the votes yet ... The problem is, there's still a lot of uncertainty surrounding this bill. The American people think there's a better way."
The partisan parrying has increased in intensity in the past few days as President Barack Obama and House and Senate Democratic leaders have increased pressure to at last resolve the health care issue, which has been before the Congress for over a year. Obama is due to leave Sunday on a trip to Asia, and he has said he wanted it finished by then.
In the interview Wednesday, Hoyer, D-Md., maintained that support for the 10-year, $1 trillion health care remake has gone up in recent weeks.
"We're going to have a clean up or down vote on the Senate vote," he said. "That will be on the rule. ... This is not an unusual procedure."
Cantor retorted that "this is a process that you can avoid a direct up or down vote on a bill."
Democratic Party chairman Tim Kaine voiced confidence on NBC's "Today" show that the bill will pass, saying "we're in the last throes of labor before something good happens. ... We're not taking anything for granted but we feel good about the outcome."
Asked if "deem and pass" is being used to provide cover for Democrats worried about voting for the measure, Kaine replied, "I don't think there's any cover to be found. Everyone's accountable."
Legitimacy Challenge to deem and passCritics Challenge Legitimacy of DEEM and PASS
Plan to Avoid Direct Vote on Health Care
March 17, 2010
As the House of Representatives moves toward approving one of the most sweeping pieces of domestic legislation in U.S. history,
critics are fuming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to usher through a health care bill -
- without a vote
From Maine to Hawaii, Americans send people to Washington, D.C., to be their representatives -
to cast votes that represent the will of the people who elected them to do the job.
But now, as the House of Representatives moves toward approving one of the most sweeping pieces of
domestic legislation in U.S. history, critics are fuming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to usher through a health care bill
- without a vote
Pelosi, they say, is thumbing her nose at a cherished, basic principle of democracy for the sake of a legislative win.
House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence is calling the plan, which several Democratic leaders are defending,
"a betrayal of the commitment of every member of this Congress to the American people."
And some say the move may not withstand a legal challenge.
"Doing it this way introduces a whole new level of risk," Michael McConnell, a former U.S. Appeals Court judge, told FoxNews.com, arguing that the tactic is not constitutional in this instance. "I think they're ill-advised to go this way."
Even a Democratic senator, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, released a statement late Tuesday saying "any plan to approve major reform without actually voting for it simply won't fly outside the Beltway."
But Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, are considering a process to pass the Senate's health care bill without forcing rank-and-file Democrats to go on record by voting to support it.
Here's how the process would work:
Under a tactic known as a "self-executing rule," the House could simultaneously approve the Senate bill while voting on a package of changes to it. This would "deem" the Senate bill to be passed, without compelling members to vote for it directly.
Democratic leaders are considering the option because many House Democrats don't want to cast a vote in favor of the unaltered Senate bill, which they oppose for numerous reasons. But the House must pass the Senate bill in order to move on to the package of changes intended to correct all the things about it that they don't like.
The Slaughter solution allows members to temporarily accept the Senate version -- but keep it at arm's length -- before they proceed to change it.
Democrats have come out strongly in favor of the method, noting that it's not rare and Republicans have used it plenty of times before. Plus, they say, there will be a vote, even though it won't be for the Senate bill alone.
"There is going to be a vote and it's going to be an up-or-down vote," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine told Fox News. "Everybody's going to be up or down, on the record and be accountable either for a yes vote or for a no vote."
But even though the option has been used before, its potential use on such a high-profile issue has some questioning its legality.
McConnell argued that the move would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a bill becomes law when it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" and the president signs it.
His main contention is that the procedure would violate precedent stating that the House and Senate must pass identical versions of any bill -- since the House would approve a measure containing the Senate bill plus a package of changes, while the Senate would pass only the package of changes.
Even MICHAEL MOORE thinks the health care bill is BAD!
Constitutional ChallengeConstitutional Challenge
Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation to File Immediate Constitutional Challenge
if House Dems try to Pass Health-Care Without Actually Voting on it
March 17, 2010
Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.
“I cannot predict if we would win or lose--this is not as simple as some would have you believe--but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn’t--that is going to be challenged if they do it,” Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Monday that she might attempt to use a procedure -- dubbed “deem and pass” – to pass the measure without actually having lawmakers vote on it.
Essentially, instead of House members casting their votes on the Senate version of the health-care bill, the House would vote on a package of “fixes” made to those parts of the Senate bill to which House members object.
Under the House’s “self-executing rule” provision, if the lawmakers pass a rule that says passing the “fixes” is the same as passing the actual bill -- then the House would magically "deem" the health-care bill to be “passed.” The "rule" itself would be sponsored by the chairman of the House Rules Committtee, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.
“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
House action could come by the end of the week.
ObamaCare is Tyranny, Not LegislationObamaCare is Tyranny, Not Legislation
March 18, 2010
What we're seeing in Washington, D.C. is not "politics as usual" with the arm twisting and "horse-trading" that is typical in getting a bill passed; instead, it is ideological warfare. What Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are doing is not legislating; it is an act of tyranny -- overturning all the rules and principles of government in a representative democracy. Attempting to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare in the House under the ironically named "Slaughter Rule" (to circumvent the objections of the Stupak coalition to taxpayer funding of abortion) is an exercise in raw power akin to the many acts of judicial tyranny the American public has endured over the last forty years from judges who have little regard for the Constitution.
Apparently Obama, Reid, and Pelosi aren't worried about losing control of Congress in 2010 or even the presidency in 2012, because their higher goal is to irrevocably institutionalize their ideology. Once government control of health care is established, their leftist principles will be implemented by an unelected bureaucracy that rules without accountability to the general public, whether or not the Democratic Party is the majority in Congress or holds the presidency.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have learned nothing from history; they are as blind to their own tyranny as were King George and the British Parliament. They show no comprehension of the moral outrage that will ignite in this country if they ram through ObamaCare, a bill that requires taxpayer funding for abortion, usurps an individual's right to choose her own personal health care options, and saddles the nation with a growing flood of debt which will drown our children and grandchildren.
Last Friday morning, you could see workers beginning to set up barricades around the Capitol in preparation for the demonstrations they expect in response to the Democrats' autocratic actions. They mistakenly think that the Tea Party protests are temporary flareups that mere barricades can contain, but their legislative and executive tyranny is unleashing emotions that have the potential to rival the antislavery movement of the Civil War era and the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s. Having abandoned those transcendent moral principles upon which this nation was founded for a false ideology of their own imagining, these people have no understanding of the righteous fury that will build in this nation when her citizens see their government sanction morally reprehensible acts.
Leaders across the nation --- nearly half a million strong --- have already signed the Manhattan Declaration declaring that moral principles take precedence over laws that ignore the value of human life and individual freedom. These deeply-held religious beliefs are inviolable, non-negotiable, and protected under the U.S. Constitution. Thousands of America's Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christian leaders have laid down a gauntlet: By reaffirming the fundamental truth that life and liberty come not from man-made laws, but from God, we have joined together "to defend the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty."
We have, in good faith, expressed our objections and righteous indignation over and over again, only to be repeatedly rebuffed and ignored. Poll after poll demonstrates that U.S. citizens are strongly opposed to ObamaCare and its impact on our nation. Yet the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis is determined to ignore the will of the people that they were elected to represent and to dictatorially impose on the nation their ideas of what's best. They have lived so long in the rarefied air of elitism that they think that the "masses" will simply accept their "superior wisdom." These unprecedented assaults on basic American principles compel Manhattan Declaration signers to forcefully mount a defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom.
Manhattan Declaration-signers have said that civil disobedience is necessary when faced with gravely unjust laws requiring submission to other laws that violate our principled moral beliefs about abortion, marriage, and religious freedom. As the Manhattan Declaration states, "We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
I feel we're at this stage at our present time b/c of all the Apostasy going on in today's church.
Today's church has gone POLITICAL CORRECT - no longer do they pray against the unfruitful works of darkness and asking the Lord to bring his judgements on them.
Heck - VERY FEW churches today are even muttering one word about this health care bill. Are they even informed about this?
I know. Obama is God's judgment on a nation that left HIM.
God will give a nation a leader - just like themselves.
Don't Count on Supreme Court to Overturn What Democrats DoDon't Count on Supreme Court to Overturn What Democrats Do
March 17, 2010
We had a doctor who wanted to know if this thing passes, if the Supreme Court could overturn it. I'm just going to say three words to that: Campaign finance reform. I'm hearing way too many people say, "Let this thing pass and let the Supreme Court say it's unconstitutional." Why do you want to roll those dice? We ought not even be thinking in terms of this passing and repealing it.
We'll cross that bridge if this thing passes, and I guarantee you the word "repeal" is going to be the number one election campaign theme of the Republican Party going into the November elections. But why even go there now? Now, I heard that my buddy Mark Levin, Landmark Legal Foundation, is going to file a lawsuit the moment they use the Slaughter rule. You wayward Democrats ought to know that there are going to be numerous legal challenges to this, led by Landmark, on the literal unconstitutionality of this. All it's going to take is for one court to decide to hear this, and everything gets stopped and put on hold. The big question is getting a court to take it. But there will be challenges. People are not going to sit around and take this.
People are not going to sit around and say, "Oh, well, we fought the good fight but we lost," and twiddle the thumbs and start complying with it. This is something people are going to rally against. People are not going to comply. This is the United States of America. It is not Venezuela, it's not Cuba, it's not North Korea. We're not a Banana Republic and we're not a Third World country yet, and weren't going to sit here and comply with something that is unconstitutional. So, yeah. It's going to be challenged the moment they use the Slaughter rule. But counting on the Supreme Court to overturn it or rule it unconstitutional? That's years and years and years down the road! We ought not have to depend on the Supreme Court for something this brazen.
Tom Coburn and GOP on high alertTom Coburn is a hero!!
Its not law if a qualified president isnt signing it
Fess Parker died March 19, 2010
He played Davy Crocket many decades ago, one movie was the Alamo.
USA is the 2010 alamo - and obamites are Santanna.
Heroes of the 2010 Obama HELLamo will be Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan,
and any Democrat voting NO!
Ballad of the Alamo
Tom Coburn and GOP on high alert
Coburn Sends Stern Warning to Dems, video
OBAMAcare is a TOTALITARIAN, HELL CONTROL bill
IRS given more powers / control
Congress Votes to Socialize Health Care in United States
Obama Signs 'Health' * Lawsuits to REPEAL follow
ZionsCRY Prophetic Commentary on NEWS
59K Catholic nuns urge Obama to pass death care...YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!
WASHINGTON – Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama's health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion.
Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough.
The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."
Pelosi: Today We Pray To St. Joseph The Worker For This "Life-Affirming Legislation"
Every Member Should Announce His or Her VoteEvery Member Should Stand Before the American People and Announce His or Her Vote
GOP Leader Calls for Special “Call of the Roll” to Require Members to Publicly Announce Health Care Vote on the House Floor
House Republican Leader John Boehner of OHIO sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
requesting that the final health care votes be recorded by “call of the roll” so that
every lawmaker is required to publicly announce their vote on the House floor.
“This weekend’s votes will be among the most consequential votes we will ever cast as Members of Congress,”
Boehner says in the letter to Speaker Pelosi. “As such, it is my belief that
every Member should stand before the American people and announce his or her vote as the final decision is made.”
According to the rules of the House of Representatives, “Unless the Speaker directs otherwise,
the Clerk shall conduct a record vote or quorum call by electronic device. The Speaker may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call by call of the roll.
In such a case the Clerk shall call the names of Members, alphabetically by surname.”
The full text of Leader Boehner’s letter to Speaker Pelosi follows. The signed copy is available here.
March 19, 2010
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
It appears the House of Representatives will proceed with plans to vote this weekend on President Obama’s health care legislation, despite the well-documented objections of the American people to both the contents of the bill and the manner in which the Democratic leadership hopes to pass it.
This weekend’s votes will be among the most consequential votes we will ever cast as Members of Congress. As such, it is my belief that every Member should stand before the American people and announce his or her vote as the final decision is made.
With this in mind, I request that you use your discretion under the Rules of the House of Representatives, Clause 2 and 3 of House Rule XX, to conduct the record vote by call of the roll for both adoption of the Senate health care bill (i.e. the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3590, as passed on Christmas Eve this past year) and for the rule making that bill in order.
Boehner Whips Up OppositionBoehner Whips Up Opposition as Democrats Drive Toward Health Care Vote
NOTE - ITS NOT 'HEALTH' CARE - ITS TOTALITARIAN
March 19, 2010
With his party in the minority and his least favorite piece of legislation about to come to a critical vote,
John Boehner is showing no sign of backing down.
Instead, the Republican leader of the House is coming at Democrats whichever way he can
during what may be the final days of the Democrats' health care reform push.
While pursuing a string of mostly symbolic challenges on the floor, his team is colluding with Senate Republicans
to figure out a way to trip up the bill if and when it hits the other chamber.
And Boehner himself is eating up camera time faster than the president, seizing some
semblance of a bully pulpit to try to frighten Democrats into having second thoughts.
"If anyone thinks the American people are going to forget this vote, just watch," Boehner told reporters Friday,
before walking away in a somewhat dramatic fashion.
He declared the day before that he and his party would do "everything" in their power to "make sure that this bill never, ever, ever passes."
The odds may be stacked against him, but Boehner's trying to prop up his side by playing the role of, believe it or not, populist.
"Republicans can't beat this bill, but the American people can," Boehner said Friday.
Republicans are planning to make a final push this weekend, with another anti-health care bill r
ally in the works as Democrats ready a get-out-the-vote push of their own.
Boehner's counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the hope is that the Senate-approved bill will die in the House, effectively halting health care reform. Plan B is for GOP senators to bring up objections to the subsequent package of changes and make life very difficult for Democrats hoping to finish it off quickly and move on to other issues.
Ahead of the presumed endgame, Boehner has led Republicans in pursuing moves meant to shame Democrats publicly more than anything.
Rep. Parker Griffith, R-Ala., who just switched from Democrat to Republican in December, sponsored a resolution Thursday to require Democrats to have a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate's health care bill. The move was in response to plans by House Democrats to use a parliamentary trick to vote simultaneously on the Senate bill and a package of changes -- a move that would "deem" the Senate health care reform bill passed and which Boehner called "just as controversial" as the bill itself.
The House shot down the resolution by a vote of 222-to-203 -- meaning 28 Democrats broke ranks to side with Republicans.
That was followed by an attempt by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., to offer a resolution accusing House Democratic leaders of "deceptive behavior" and operating in a "malfeasant manner." The unusually heated language targeted efforts to pass the Senate's health care reform bill by using the controversial parliamentary tactic.
In response, the House tabled -- or set aside -- the resolution, in effect killing it. But it, too, exposed a split in the Democratic ranks. Ten Democrats voted with Republicans not to table the resolution.
But while Republicans are nipping at the Democrats' bill, Democrats are trying to claim the enthusiasm factor and win over hold-outs in their caucus.
Obama, who held a rally Friday in Virginia, plans to hold an 11th-hour meeting with House Democrats on Saturday.
"I am very excited about the momentum that is developing around the bill," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have a significant victory for the American people."
Republicans, though, rolled out the argument Friday that the deficit reductions Democrats are claiming -- $138 billion over the next decade -- are inaccurate, in part because of a potential move to increase Medicare payments to doctors in a separate measure by much more than that.
"It is clearly false momentum," Cantor said Friday.
Challenges Could Drag Out voteChallenges Could Drag Out vote
If this bill passes, America is GONE. It has CEASED TO EXIST.
According to RUSH Limbaugh March 19th, the March 21 vote is the FINAL one.
Passed. Law. We will hear NO MORE on this subject from DC.
AMNESTY for all illegals is next. If DEMON PASS is allowed, Obama will pass ALL his demonic legislation this way.
March 19, 2010
Though Democrats are looking for a big vote Sunday on health care reform, the process could drag out for a while with Republicans looking to challenge the legislation and one Democrat mulling a new "sidecar" bill.
So the House will vote to approve the health care bill on Sunday, the Senate will promptly polish off a "fix-it" bill, and this whole political nightmare will end -- right?
Not so fast.
Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, an anti-abortion Democrat, is floating a plan to introduce an entirely separate bill -- in addition to the main Senate bill and the House's package of changes -- to tighten restrictions on abortion funding. This would create a whole new set of votes that have to be cast before Congress can finish its work.
On top of that, Republican senators are warning that they will drag out the process of approving the "sidecar" package of changes that House Democrats want to see passed in exchange for their vote on the main Senate bill. Republicans plan to tinker with that bill so that after they're done with it, the House has to take it up again.
If they succeed, it means the health care issue won't go away Sunday -- or even next week. And Democrats who are looking to get beyond the debate, particularly those in moderate or conservative districts, will be dogged by the issue as they enter the high season of campaigning.
"There's way too much uncertainty," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told Fox News.
Ideally for Democrats, the House will approve the original Senate bill, approve the "reconciliation" bill and then send that to the Senate, where it will be adopted intact and sent to President Obama's desk. The "reconciliation" bill is the package of changes to the Senate-passed bill that was unveiled Thursday -- under the reconciliation rules, Democrats will be able to pass that bill with just 51 votes in the Senate, instead of 60.
But there are several problems with that plan.
First, Stupak's move to draft a new bill is a considerable complication. He's the moderate Democrat who spearheaded a measure on the original House bill to create a virtual wall between taxpayer dollars and abortion coverage. The Senate bill is seen to be weaker on that front, and Stupak and his allies have pledged to oppose the bill unless they see changes.
If he can pass a bill of "corrections" to the abortion language out of the House, that would have to pass the Senate and then be signed into law by the president before the Senate can take up the package of changes.
Then there are problems with the reconciliation bill itself.
"People who are relying on the reconciliation bill in the House of Representatives ... may well be being sold a bill of goods," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said on the floor Thursday.
If the bill is changed at all in the Senate, the House has to take another stab at it. And then if the House changes it, then the Senate has to take it up again. And so on.
Republicans see this as likely.
"It would in any case have to go back to the House of Representatives," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
The prospect of a prolonged health care debate surely doesn't sit well with many Democrats, even though Obama reportedly is telling them the vote is good for their political survival.
The Republicans' specific strategy for prolonging the debate is to exploit a potential problem with the reconciliation bill.
The main trouble spot is that the package includes a change to the controversial tax on high-cost "Cadillac" insurance plans -- under a compromise, because liberal Democrats and unions despise it, the tax would be put off until 2018, as opposed to 2013.
But Republicans argue that the adjustment would run afoul of a congressional rule that says reconciliation cannot be used to tweak Social Security. Because the tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans is projected to bring in revenue to Social Security, any change to that tax would presumably affect Social Security.
This is a clear violation of the rule, GOP sources told Fox News.
It takes 60 votes to waive any objections Republicans might bring up on the floor on those grounds, but Democrats have only 59. And there aren't a lot of senators crossing aisles these days.
Even Democratic North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, in an interview with Fox News, conceded that changes are likely. But his strategy is to fix the bill on the House side before it gets to the Senate to minimize the chances of it getting sent back.
The GOP strategy appears to be two-fold, though: Either toy with the bill when it gets to the Senate and drag out the process, or prevent the bill from coming to the Senate at all.
If Republicans can make the case that key parts of the "sidecar" bill will never be passed, then they hope a number of fence-sitting House Democrats will not want to go on record in support of a Senate bill they see as seriously flawed.
"So if you're a member of the House of Representatives, the best you can hope for is you're going to get a bill back to the House that has a lot of these provisions that you care about knocked out," Thune said, calling the idea that the Senate is going to fix all the problems in the original bill an "incredible leap of faith."
|BornAgain2 wrote: |
|59K Catholic nuns urge Obama to pass death care...YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!
Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama's health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion.
Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough.
The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."
Those nuns will burn in hell with this pope.
All the claims that tax funded abortions will NOT be in the bill are FALSE.
Obama is determined they WILL, and abortion mills are eager for the huge increase in their slaughter of babies.
|BornAgain2 wrote: |
|Today's church has gone POLITICAL CORRECT
Pelosi: Today We Pray To St. Joseph The Worker For This Life-Affirming Legislation
GOD is NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. All who are oppose HIM.
St Joseph is a demon. So is Pelosi.
All saints Catholics pray to are actually demons.
9 major changes9 major changes
March. 19, 2010
In their attempt to pass a sweeping health care overhaul this weekend, House Democrats are pushing a package of legislative fixes to lure undecided or opposed members of their party to the "yes" category.
Proposed changes to the Senate-passed health care bill include a scaled-back tax on high-cost health insurance plans – a provision that is widely unpopular with House Democrats – and more money to help states pay for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and disabled. The new measure, called a reconciliation bill, also would take additional steps to close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage and to help low- and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance through new insurance exchanges.
If approved by the House, which is scheduled to vote Sunday, the package would be considered in the Senate under a process that would require just 51 votes for passage rather than the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster.
Barack Obama has postponed a scheduled trip to Asia to be in town to help persuade wavering Democrats to vote for the bill.
Heftier subsidies: Compared to the Senate legislation, the reconciliation bill would provide more generous subsidies to low- and moderate-income Americans to help them buy health coverage.
The “Maserati” tax: The levy on high-cost insurance plans is scaled back and delayed, rendering it more a "Maserati" than a "Cadillac" tax. It would apply only to the portion of plans costing more than $10,200 a year for individuals, up from $8,500, and $27,500 for families, up from $23,000. The tax wouldn't kick in until 2018, reducing the projected revenue to the government by 80 percent.
Over time, however, the tax would hit more and more plans, because the tax's threshold is set to increase at the rate of inflation while premiums are expected to continue to grow much more quickly than that.
Closing the doughnut hole: Unlike the Senate bill, the reconciliation measure would eventually close the coverage gap, called the "doughnut hole," for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D drug plans. (Currently, seniors who hit the gap must bear the full cost of their medications until they spend a certain amount, when coverage kicks back in.)
Under the new bill, seniors who hit the gap this year would get $250 to help cover the costs of their medications. Starting next year, they'd get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, with the cost borne by the drug industry. In subsequent years, the discounts would expand and begin covering generic drugs, with the expense picked up by the government. By 2020, the discounts would reach 75 percent.
Shift in Medicare Advantage payouts: Government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, would be cut back more steeply than under the Senate bill: $132 billion over 10 years, compared to $118 billion.
The government currently pays the private plans an average of 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. The new bill, besides reducing payments overall, would shift the funding; some high-cost areas would be paid 5 percent below traditional Medicare, while some lower-cost areas would be paid 15 percent more than traditional Medicare. The Senate's plan that would have shielded some areas of the country such as South Florida from major cuts was largely eliminated.
A raise for doctors: Primary care doctors would get a Medicaid payment boost in the reconciliation bill. Beginning in 2013 and 2014, the doctors' payment rates would be on par with Medicare rates, which typically are about 20 percent higher than Medicaid. The goal is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of doctors willing to care for the millions of additional people who would become eligible for Medicaid under the health care overhaul.
Pushing up the Medicare tax: The Senate bill adds 0.9 percent to the Medicare payroll tax on earned income above $200,000 for individuals, or $250,000 for couples. Under the reconciliation bill, starting in 2013, people in those income brackets also would face a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, such as interest, capital gains and dividends.
Penalty for not having insurance: Under the new bill, most Americans without insurance would face an annual penalty, starting in 2014 at $95 – the same as in the Senate bill. But in following years, the penalties in the reconciliation bill are slightly different.
Those without insurance in 2016, for example, would pay the greater of two alternatives: a flat fee of $695, down from the Senate’s $750, or 2.5 percent of their income, up from 2 percent in the Senate bill.
Expanding Medicaid: The reconciliation package differs from the Senate-passed bill in several ways. It would delete a provision dubbed the "Cornhusker kickback" that would have exempted Nebraska from paying any cost of a Medicaid expansion included in the bill. But it would provide full federal funding to all states for newly eligible Medicaid recipients for three years. And it would give additional funding to states like Vermont and Maine that have already moved to cover adults without children, which isn't required under the Medicaid program.
Medicare spending board: The Senate bill would create an independent, 15-member board to recommend ways to control Medicare spending. The board remains in the reconciliation package, but would be expected to produce just about half of its original projected savings of $23 billion in the Senate bill. That's because the new proposal would make greater cuts in Medicare Advantage plans.
AND HOW MANY OF THOSE NUNS HAVE HAD ABORTIONS?
(FATHERED BY THE FEW HETEROSEXUAL "fathers"!)
I have heard there is a home for pregnant nuns.
America denounces commie careAmerica denounces commie care
March 20, 2010
Will it soon be the U.S.S.A. – the United Socialist States of America? Arrogant Obama cant stop bullying.
Tens of thousands of people descended on the Capitol in Washington DC. Critics of the reform bill cite the abortion
financing the government would require, massive fines, especially against married couples. NOwhere in the
U.S. Constitution is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance a federal bureaucrat picks out.
Obamacare is a TOTALITARIAN, HELL CONTROL bill
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
March 21, 2010
If reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.
Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Well, not only the bill passed, but it was officially signed into law on 3/22/2010...322, of course, is the secret code for that Skull & Bones secret society at Yale.
Stupak Called Baby Killer on House Floor
DAY is DONE, GONE the SUN
From the LAKE, from the HILLS, from the SKY.
ALL is WELL, SAFELY REST - GOD is NIGH
March 21, 2010
The first day of Spring, and the last day for America
U.S. House passes HELL bill called health insurance overhaul 219-212, sent to Obama’s desk.
House rejected Republican motion to send the bill back to committee based on abortion concerns, as Obama openly favors abortion.
House passes reconciliation 'fixes,' sends to Senate for approval.
Included is a measure boosting college aid and shifting to direct govt lending.
The so-called pro-life Demoncrat lawmakers caved, and swallowed Obama's usual lies and curses America.
Well, Lord, please let Your curse only fall on the guilty who voted for Obama, and not on the innocent.
Stupak Called Baby Killer on House Floor
March 22, 2010
Even after the main vote on the Democrats' health bill Sunday night, tempers continued to flare in the House.
Following the vote on the massive health bill, Republicans challenged the Democratic bill's language barring federal funding of abortions, saying it was weak and would effectively allow public funding for abortions.
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, (TRAITOR!) who had fought for tough language barring federal subsidies for abortion coverage, denounced the Republican move, saying it was nothing more than an attempt to deny 32 million Americans health care. From the Republican side a voice shouted, "Baby killer!"
It was not immediately clear who had called out the epithet.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), said it wasn't him.
"I don't think it’s appropriate at all. The people who know won't give it up. I'm not casting dispersions on that state" in a reference to lawmakers from Texas.
Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said he heard the scream but wouldn't say who was responsible.
"I can make a guess," Barton told reporters.
HELL bill was officially signed into law on 3/22/2010
322 is the secret code for that Skull & Bones secret society at Yale.
O great, doubly damned.
NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak dealNARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal
This evil man betrayed his voters and America and LIFE.
March 21, 2010
The president of the National Organization for Women said her group is "incensed" about the impasse-breaking deal between Obama and a group of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats that seems likely to allow historic health-care reform legislation to pass the House later Sunday night, saying the planned presidential executive order "breaks faith with women."
Other reproductive rights groups, as well as abortion opponents, are also displeased with the compromise.
In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign had promised abortion-rights supporters that he would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which NOW President Terry O'Neill said Sunday would instead be given fresh weight by Obama's executive order.
"Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the antiabortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass," she said.
"Obama does not support the Hyde Amendment," his campaign staff told RH Reality Check in response to a questionnaire from the reproductive rights group. "He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors."
On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, he again laid out his commitment to abortion rights: "I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president," he said. That act would bar discrimination against exercising abortion rights in benefits, facilities, services or information.
But the deal struck with Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.) and other antiabortion Democrats saw Obama promising to issue an order declaring: "The act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges."
"Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill."
She added: "NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."
The National Right to Life Committee is no happier with the deal, and issued a statement saying it remains strongly opposed to the legislation and warning that "a lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well."
The group called the legislation a "pro-abortion bill" and said: "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."
The NRLC sees seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions in the legislation.
NARAL Pro-Choice America shared NOW's objections.
"On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive-health care," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a statement of regret but did not go as far as NOW and NARAL in condemning the deal.
"We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health-care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. She also said her group is "grateful" that the executive order does not "include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak had insisted upon."
As a consequences of the deal, Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, called for abortion rights supporters to renew their push to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
"I hope the choice movement now decides to play hardball with Democrats, including the President, and insist that an all out effort to overturn the Hyde Amendment is required if Democratic office holders and candidates want our vote in 2012," she told The Post. "I for one have decided that I simply will not vote for another elected official until Hyde is overturned and I hope others will do the same. There is no reason for prochoice voters to accept Democratic pussyfooting around on repealing Hyde."
Key Points in Obama bill H.R. 3200Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200
Update: THE PDF.OF THE BILL HR3200 NOTED AT THE END OF THE VIDEO IS NO LONGER VALID. HERE IS THE UPDATED LINK TO THE PDF. http://candicemiller.house.gov
I am well aware of the typeo in this video, I apologize but It's too late to fix it now.
We are now at a stage where the House and the Senate must merge their ideas on their healthcare bills into one. If you would like the pdf. for these bills find them online. The FACTS in this video on bill H.R. 3200 still hold true in comparison to the House and Senate bills which have been passed, unfortunately. The House bill passed with a stipulation that will not fund abortion with our scarce and hard earned money. The Senate bill is worse and does intend on killing babies with our scarce and hard earned money. These two bills will be merged together and it is my common sense guess that they will go behind closed doors and merge these bills together with the forced option to fund abortion using YOUR money. Please people PRAY that this whole thing will miraculously get shot down. And know this, that no matter what way it passes, abortion funding or not, HEALTHCARE WILL NEVER BE FREE!! We will be forced to purchase it and those who do not or cannot purchase it will be fined or jailed. What a caring government huh? Even in our sick economy (caused by this same government might I ad) we will be expected to purchase this. No matter what, you better believe that with everything else these Washington thugs do, they will go behind closed doors and do whatever they choose to do. AMERICA IT IS TIME TO TAKE ACTION!!
Healthcare is only a powerful stepping stone to their government takeover plan. Open your eyes America, they don't care what "we the people" want or need, which is affordable and decent healthcare, they simply want control.
Original Bill (Video) :This is a point by point description of the Government Healthcare plan taken from the ACTUAL proposed bill H.R.3200http://candicemiller.house.gov/p df/hr3200.pdf
Though not opposed to healthcare reform most Americans do not want this KIND of reform which is a dangerous UN-AMERICAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL We want reform that makes sense and that is helpful for all not a destructive death warrant for the unborn and the elderly. We want government to stay out of our personal life decisions period. This is America !!
Health Law Page 1,617 Demanding Which Drugs WorkHealth Law Surprise
Page 1,617 Demanding Which Drugs Work
March 25, 2010 (Bloomberg)
Page 1,617 of the 2,400-page law signed by President Barack Obama this week -- the most sweeping change to U.S. health-care in 45 years -- sparked little of the debate surrounding the expansion of coverage to 32 million Americans or its tax on employees’ “Cadillac” insurance plans.
Yet the 43-page measure tucked inside the bill may have a far greater effect on medical care.
The overhaul creates an institute, funded with $500 million or more annually, to spur studies of which drugs, devices and medical procedures work best. The boost for comparative- effectiveness research, as the field is known among health experts, will increase scrutiny on treatments used by millions of Americans, including cholesterol drugs led by Pfizer Inc.’s Lipitor and heart stents from Medtronic Inc., said John Sullivan, an analyst at Leerink Swann & Co.
The findings may add scientific rigor to doctors’ decisions sometimes influenced more by marketing, said Jeffrey Lerner of the ECRI Institute, a nonprofit that conducts such research. In a health overhaul attacked by critics as too pricey, it’s one of the few measures with a chance to rein in U.S. medical spending that soared to $2.5 trillion last year, Sullivan said.
Comparative effectiveness will probably be “a headwind for the health-care industry,” the Boston-based analyst said in a March 23 phone interview. “If research shows that less complex and maybe less expensive products and therapies work just as well, that is not good news” for the companies.
The overhaul, the culmination of a yearlong battle between Democrats and Republicans, tightens restrictions on insurers, increases taxes on health-care companies and requires most Americans to get insured. The House voted March 21 to approve the bill, 219 to 212.
Congressional Republicans, who unanimously opposed the legislation, will campaign this fall on a promise to repeal it, said Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP minority leader, after Obama’s bill-signing. The law “cuts Medicare a half a trillion dollars, raises taxes by half a trillion dollars, and in all likelihood will drive the cost of insurance up,” he said.
Comparative effectiveness is one of multiple tools in the law designed to pry savings from the system, said Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, in a March 23 telephone interview. The legislation also experiments with new payment systems for doctors, penalizes hospitals with high readmission rates and creates an independent commission to decide which treatments Medicare should pay for, he said.
“I don’t think there’s any one piece that, by itself, is the end-all-be-all” for slowing the growth in medical expenses, he said. “Together, they work to move toward a higher-quality, lower-cost system over time.”
The health bill’s funding builds upon $1.1 billion approved by Congress last year for effectiveness research. The new legislation creates a nonprofit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and tasks it with setting a national agenda for the studies, as well as providing more money and disseminating results.
The institute will be run by a 19-member board of governors with three representatives of drug, device and diagnostic- testing companies as well as patient advocates, doctors and the National Institutes of Health. The U.S. Comptroller General, a presidential appointee, must name the board within six months.
Its funding will start at $10 million this year and reach about $500 million in 2013 when money from Medicare and a new insurer tax kicks in, according to an estimate from the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based research center. The budget may increase if insurance rolls grow, Brookings estimates.
National health-care spending has more than doubled over the last 35 years as a share of the overall economy, the Congressional Budget Office said in a December 2007 report. Even so, the U.S. lags behind other countries in life-expectancy and infant mortality rates, said Douglas Elmendorf, the agency’s director, in testimony to Congress last March.
Studies suggest less than half of all medical care is backed up by adequate evidence of its effectiveness and “a substantial share” of spending “contributes little if anything to the overall health of the nation,” he said.
The health-care law focuses on studies that assess effectiveness rather than compare costs. It also bars Medicare, the U.S. government insurer for the elderly, from using the research as the sole grounds for denying reimbursement for medical products or procedures.
Still, “the savings can be substantial if you’re drawing a clinical study conclusion that a generic drug works as well as a branded drug,” said Leerink Swann’s Sullivan, offering one example of research that may be done. Therapies used by large numbers of people are likely to be investigators’ first targets.
“You’re talking about saving not pennies on the dollar, but very substantial savings” if patients can replace a branded drug with a generic, he said.
Along with statins such as New York-based Pfizer’s Lipitor, Sullivan cited anti-inflammatory drugs that include Remicade, made by Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey, and heart stents manufactured by Minneapolis-based Medtronic and Boston Scientific Corp. of Natick, Massachusetts.
The research is likely to spur consolidation among health- care companies, said Lerner, chief executive officer at the ECRI Institute based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, which serves governments and hospital systems. Smaller manufacturers may not have the resources to rebut studies questioning a product’s value, he said by telephone.
“When you compete against other technologies, you’re going to have to demonstrate scientifically that you measure up and that takes time and money and sophistication,” Lerner said.
“The companies are now going to have to not just launch new products with marketing hype, but they’re going to have to demonstrate evidence of superior clinical effectiveness,” said Vivian Coates, an ECRI vice-president.
The fallout from a 2005 study of antipsychotic medications shows the most effective treatment doesn’t always win, said Robert Rosenheck, a psychiatry professor at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
The U.S.-backed study found a 50-year-old drug that may cost about $2.50 a day worked as well as newer medicines priced eight times higher, Rosenheck said. Sales of the next-generation antipsychotics, led by AstraZeneca Plc’s Seroquel, Eli Lilly & Co.’s Zyprexa and Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal, nonetheless jumped 43 percent in four years to $14.75 billion by 2009, according to IMS Health Inc., a collector of prescription-drug data based in Norwalk, Connecticut.
“The overwhelming weight of very aggressive marketing for 15 years shapes attitudes in ways that aren’t likely to be changed by research,” said Rosenheck, author of two antipsychotic comparison studies, in a telephone interview.
Comparative studies changed treatment of breast cancer, spurring doctors to end the routine removal of entire breasts after research found less drastic operations just as effective, Rosenheck said. “But those are mostly where there was no private corporation actively marketing its perspective.”
Orszag, an economist trained at Princeton University in New Jersey and the London School of Economics, is a longtime proponent of comparative effectiveness.
Orszag grew frustrated as a scholar at the Brookings Institution when so much attention was paid to the rising cost of Social Security, he said in a May interview. Health care represented a far larger share of the nation’s economy, he said.
The budget chief eventually discovered the work of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, a national study on regional variations on medical spending and outcomes in the U.S. Researchers at Dartmouth suggested $700 billion may be saved annually by eliminating differences in the cost of similar procedures and foregoing treatments not proven to help patients.
“Huge efficiencies could be gained if we change the way we practice medicine,” Orszag said in May, when he argued for a government institute to gather more evidence. Republican critics argued throughout the yearlong overhaul battle that the concept was a stealth effort to deny health care to people who need it.
The overhaul’s support for comparative research, tied to Medicare and the insurer tax, is “unprecedented” and should help insulate the program from politics, said Daniel Mendelson, a health-care expert in the White House Office of Management and Budget under former President Bill Clinton.
The dedicated funding “shows the very, very deep commitment among members of Congress” to such studies, said Mendelson, now chief executive officer at Avalere Health LLC, a Washington consulting firm with government and industry clients.
‘Part of the Dialogue’
Companies need to recognize that comparative research is “a permanent part of the dialogue,” he said.
Drugmakers, led by Pfizer, support the effort as “an important solution for better quality and ultimately better value in health-care,” said Randy Burkholder, an associate vice-president at PhRMA, the industry’s trade group in Washington, in a telephone interview. Device companies agree, said David Nexon, an executive vice-president for the industry’s AdvaMed trade group.
Device makers favor the legislation because it focuses on clinical effectiveness, rather than cost, and because manufacturers will be part of the decision-making, he said in a telephone interview. The research may speed use of technologies proven better than existing treatments, Nexon said.
“It takes about 17 years until a new technology is fully accepted as the dominant practice even for something that’s new and better,” he said March 23. “If you’ve got something that’s really superior, having these studies validate that can really speed up the adoption of new practices.”
Volume and Value
The research will have to overcome a payment system that rewards doctors for the volume of care done, rather than its value, said Devon Herrick, a health economist at the nonprofit National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
“There’s really very little incentive for a physician or hospital to follow cost-effectiveness studies,” Herrick said. “Often what we consider to be waste, a hospital considers that revenue. Traditionally, doctors never had to know about the cost of the drugs they’re prescribing.
“Quite often what happens is you go to your doctor and they pull a free sample out of the pill cabinet,” Herrick said. “People like getting something for free, but they don’t know it’s the highest-price drug that the companies want to promote,” he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Alex Nussbaum in New York email@example.com; Meg Tirrell in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org; Pat Wechsler in New York at +1- email@example.com.
Last Updated: March 25, 2010 00:01 EDT
Congress Votes to Socialize Health Care in United States
Obama Signs 'Health' * Lawsuits to REPEAL follow
March 23, 2010 - ANUBIS
END of AMERIKA
The Fullness of the Gentiles Has Come!
ObamaCare Law NOT What This Doctor Ordered[/color] ObamaCare Law NOT What This Doctor Ordered
This is an excellent review!
A friend of mine went to his doctor April 1 and his young doc ranted an hour and a half about how horrible the new ObamaCare law is!
April 01, 2010
While President Obama and Democrats in Congress are running a victory lap to celebrate passage of health care reform, many doctors are less pleased, to put it mildly. More than 40 local and national medical societies representing over half a million doctors came out against the health reform legislation.
I am one of those doctors who believe the new law is bad for doctors and, therefore, patients. Unfortunately, no one has listened to us. So get ready, America. Here's how I see health care changing under this new law:
Insurance premiums are bound to go up as patients with pre-existing conditions are covered. We've seen this time and again, most recently in 2006 after Massachusetts passed universal health insurance. If Congress institutes national caps on premiums, private insurers will need to cut services to maintain even slight profits. If at the same time, Medicare is gutted by half a trillion dollars — as the new law intends — a decrease in services and reimbursements will follow. Private insurers will follow Medicare's lead.
The bottom line: I will be seeing more patients for less money amid increasing federal oversight and an inevitable restriction in services. This will be a disaster for doctors like me who are struggling to keep offices open as expenses soar (nearly 20% annually over the past nine years), as well as doctors just starting out, often saddled with hefty student loans.
My waiting room is already filled with patients whom I see more for a sense of personal satisfaction than any recompense. Take one recent morning. My first patient was a Medicaid recipient whom I have been seeing gratis for five years. I stopped filing Medicaid claims and dropped out of Medicaid because the time to file paperwork and collect wasn't worth the meager payment.
My second patient was an older gentleman on Medicare, which pays me 80% of a predetermined fee. So I receive $56 to care for him. Because he doesn't have secondary insurance, I sometimes write off the remaining 20%. Over the past 10 years, his list of ailments and medications has tripled. His care takes longer, but the fee remains the same: $56.
My third patient is self-employed and struggles to pay his ever-rising insurance premiums. New York, where I practice, has among the highest premiums in the nation because of a 1992 law that made it difficult to exclude patients with pre-existing conditions. He now might benefit from a federal subsidy or qualify for Medicaid, but I'll be unlikely to keep him as a patient. I am in the process of dropping out of low-pay HMOs, and I am unlikely to sign up again with Medicaid unless its reimbursement rates quadruple.
In my office of the near future, I envision losing longtime patients. Sure, my waiting room will quickly fill with more insured patients, but they will likely carry insurance with more restrictions and denials.
Many doctors are already stretched to the limit and will not be able to work with these changes. More will soon accept only cash or checks, creating a two-tiered system of care. And then there's tort reform, or a lack thereof. Without it, I can still be held liable for a bad outcome even if a diagnosis was missed because the insurance denied the test or procedure. Doctors will walk away from this nonsense.
Without the doctors to take care of these patients (the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates a shortage of 160,000 doctors by 2025), the health reform efforts will fall flat.
I hope the new law doesn't play out this way. But this is my diagnosis, and mere optimism won't change the reality of health care in America.
Only good reform will, and that's not what the president or Congress delivered.
Marc Siegel is a practicing internist in New York
Dhimmitude * Turning America MuslimDhimmitude - Turning America Muslim
This is VERY disturbing
Alas...exactly what the luke-warm church has allowed to happen in the USA. The ostrich will continue to keep its head in the sand, until it is too late. The frog in the pot on top of the stove, will continue to heat & lull the frog asleep, ultimately to its death.
Obama rewarding Americans to become Muslim!!!
This is disturbing!!!
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
The Obama Care bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
So we will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of our assets, including real estate, cattle, accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because we refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty taxm, but Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"
I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it - quickly.
PRAY AMERICA TURN BACK TO GOD
the TRUE GOD !!
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin..."
Samuel Adams, 1776
Texas doctors flee Medicare in drovesTexas doctors flee Medicare in droves
May 17, 2010
Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.
Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.
“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association.
“If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”
More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first 3 months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle.
Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.
The largest number of doctors opting out comes from primary care, a field already short of practitioners nationally and especially in Texas.
Psychiatrists also make up a large share of the pie, causing one Texas leader to say, “God forbid that a senior has dementia.”
The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010.
Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.
The uncertainty proved too much for Dr. Guy Culpepper, a Dallas-area family practice doctor who says he wrestled with his decision for years before opting out in March.
It was, he said, the only way “he could stop getting bullied and take control of his practice.”
“You do Medicare for God and country because you lose money on it,” said Culpepper, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.
“The only way to provide cost-effective care is outside the Medicare system, a system without constant paperwork and headaches and inadequate reimbursement.”
Ending Medicare participation is just one consequence of the system's funding problems. In a new Texas Medical Association survey,
opting out was one of the least common options doctors have taken or are planning as a result of declining Medicare funding —
behind increasing fees, reducing staff wages and benefits, reducing charity care and not accepting new Medicare patients.
In 2008, 42 percent of Texas doctors participating in the survey said they were no longer accepting all new Medicare patients. Among primary-care doctors, the percentage was 62 percent.
The impact on doctors has not been lost on their patients. Kathy Sweeney, a Houston retiree, twice has been turned away by specialists because they weren't accepting new Medicare patients.
She worries her doctors might have to drop her if Medicare cuts go through and they can't afford to continue in the program.
“I've talked to them about the possibility,” said Sweeney, who sent her legislators a letter calling on them to fix Medicare. “They're hanging in there as long as there's not a severe cut, but just thinking I couldn't continue doctor-patient relationships I built up over years is disturbing. Seniors should be able to see the doctors they want.”
The problem dates back to 1997, when Congress passed a balanced budget law that included a Medicare payment formula aimed at reining in spending.
The formula, which assumed low growth rates, called for payment cuts if spending exceeded goals, a scenario that occurred year after year as health care costs grew.
The scheduled cuts, expected to be modest, turned out to be large.
Congress would overturn the cuts, but their short-term fixes didn't keep up with inflation. The Texas Medical Association says the cumulative effect since 2001 already amounts to an inflation-adjusted cut of 20.9 percent.
In 2001, doctors receiving a $1,000 Medicare payment made roughly $410, after taking out operating expenses.
In 2010, they'll net $290. If the scheduled 21.2 percent cut goes through, they'd net $72, effectively an 83 percent cut since 2001.
The issue caused the Texas Medical Association to break ranks with the American Medical Association and oppose health care reform efforts throughout 2009.
Then TMA President Dr. William Fleming said “reform is doomed to failure” without Medicare reform and called Congress'
failure to devise a rational payment plan “an insult to seniors, people with disabilities and military families.”
No surprise to senator
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he isn't surprised by the new opt-out numbers, allowing that Congress' inability to reform
Medicare is leaving “seniors without access and breaking the promise we made to them.”
“The problem has been how to eliminate the cuts without running up the deficit,” said Cornyn, responding to blame U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, placed on the
Senate for not passing a House bill that would have provided a longer-term Medicare fix.
“There hasn't been the political will, but we really have no choice but to fix it.”
Cornyn acknowledged the task is daunting. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that eliminating scheduled Medicare payment cuts through 2020 would cost $276 billion.
The growth in Texas Medicare opt-outs began in earnest in 2007, when 70 doctors notified Trailblazer Health Enterprises, the state's Medicare carrier, they would no longer participate, up from seven in 2006.
The numbers jumped to 151 in 2008, fell back to 135 in 2009 and are on pace for 200 in 2010. From 1998 to 2002, by contrast, no more than three a year opted out.
Now, according to a Texas Medical Association new poll, more than four in 10 doctors are considering the move.
“I've been in practice 24 years, and a lot of my patients got old right along with me,” Culpepper said.
“It's stressful to tell them you're leaving Medicare and they're responsible for payments if they want to stay with you. You feel like you're abandoning them.”
Obamacare inch by inchObamacare inch by inch
This is chilling. I have heard a rumor of ObamaCare being implemented first in Mississippi.
I have no idea if true. Please post if you have information.
June 03, 2010 Jane Chastain
Obamacare, Hillarycare, national health care, universal health care and single payer are all euphemisms that have been used for socialized medicine.
Why all the euphemisms? Because socialized medicine has been an abject failure and has never been able to deliver on its advertised promise of better health care for less.
In fact, the hallmark of socialized medicine is just the opposite. It delivers less quality health care and the costs skyrocket with every passing year until rationing is imposed.
Some of you are under the notion that we dodged a bullet with Obamacare, that the so called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" left the president far from his initial goal.
No so! This country has been going down the garden path to socialized medicine for quite some time, but Obamacare speeds up the process and seals our fate.
Do you remember, in the run-up to Obamacare, there was a large outcry because the Democrats attempted to lower the age of eligibility for Medicare,
a program that is due to explode, a program that everyone knows is going broke and a program from which the Democrats plan to raid a half a trillion dollars?
Pelosi, Reid and company backed away from expanding Medicare's rolls and instead raised the eligibility for Medicaid. The end result was the same.
Our government, which is going deeper in the hole every day, is now insuring another 18 million people. It was the old bait and switch.
You take 18 million people or so from column "A," Medicare, and instead add 18 million people from column "B," at the other end of the spectrum.
The march toward total government control over health care continues. Was anyone paying attention? Where was the outcry?
The march toward socialized medicine began in 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid were established as amendments to the Social Security Act.
The very name Social Security is a misnomer. Do you know anyone who exists solely on Social Security that has any quality of life?
However, many spend every dollar they earn, then retire, believing that they can live on this pittance from the federal government.
Medicare was established to insure that the nation's elderly had health insurance. In 1965, was there a shortage of companies providing private insurance coverage?
No, but the argument was that most people's health insurance was tied to their employment. This was true because employer-based health insurance was tax free.
The obvious solution to this problem was to take away this incentive and give the tax advantage directly to individuals.
Then, responsible people would have purchased their own health insurance, which would have stayed with them for the rest of their lives.
Instead, the government took over control of the health care of senior citizens and, as the costs began to rise,
Uncle Sam began squeezing down the reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and squeezing out the benefits.
Medicaid was established to insure the poor but has continue to expand to cover various classes of individuals.
By the time the new Obama threshold kicks in, it will take in individuals earning up to $15,694 per year and a family of four making $31,920 per year, but that is just the beginning.
Most children in these families are already covered by the federal government.
In 1997, after beating back Hillarycare, the Republican-controlled Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and passed the S-CHIP program,
which put the children of lower-income working families in a government-run program.
If you can't expand government-run health care any other way, do it for the children. How disingenuous!
S-CHIP was sponsored by John Kasich in the House and Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate.
There was no need for this program, as children's health insurance was readily available and cheap.
Under Obama, S-CHIP was expanded to cover another 4 to 11 million children in families making up to $88,000 per year.
In most states, these families would be considered well-to-do. S-CHIP also covers immigrants and certain adults, including pregnant women.
"But if we cover pregnant women, isn't it heartless to dump them once they give birth?" The drumbeat to expand government-run insurance continues.
Before the passage of Obamacare, the federal government already had control of about half of the health care in the United States.
Unless this bill is repealed and repealed soon (which is unlikely), it is only a matter of time before the government has absolute control of all health care.
Once the government has absolute control of your health care, freedom is an illusion.
S CHIP? ... CHIP?
Andy Griffith pitching Obama's deathcare law to seniors
Friday, July 30th, 2010 AP
Actor Andy Griffith has a new role: pitching President Barack Obama's health care law to seniors in a cable television ad paid for by Medicare.
The TV star tells seniors that "good things are coming" under the health care overhaul, including free preventive checkups and lower-cost prescriptions for Medicare recipients.
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu8q0EU4b9w&feature=player_embedded
Doctors Against Obamacare met in San Diego August 7, 2010
I didnt see this til today, Aug 12
Why do doctors oppose ObamaCare?
ObamaCare requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties.
Forcing patients to buy insurance that may not even cover the care they need is wrong for patients, physicians, and our nation, and is unconstitutional.
If this health care bill remains law, then it will:
* Subject physicians to the greater control of insurance company oversight
* Deter innovation by physicians because insurance companies won't allow it
* Impoverish patients by forcing them to pay for expensive insurance they may not use
* Enrich insurance companies at the expense of patients and physicians
* Eliminate the growing market of self-paying patients
* Bankrupt government programs and potentially lead to a government takeover
* Cause many physicians to stop practicing, leading to shortages and long waiting lines
Organizing for Health Care - Interpreting the Symbolic Imagery
Hermes puts America to Sleep with his Magick Wand
ObamaCare Closes pain-treatment program
Look what president's solution is doing to U.S. health centers
August 16, 2010
Obamacare has landed in Denver, where doctors at a pain-management clinic have been told they must stop treating patients with a
successful process that extracts their own adult stem cells, cultivates them and then reinjects them to stimulate growth in damaged limbs.
The word of the dispute comes from Dr. Christopher Centano of the Centano Schultz clinic, whose Regenexx, or Regenerative Sciences Inc.,
has been successfully treating patients with the process for several years.
Centano confirms his work provides a much less costly and significantly more convenient alternative to knee or hip joint replacement surgeries, which sometimes require a year or more of recuperation.
But the Food and Drug Administration, in the wake of the adoption of President Obama's plan to nationalize health-care decision making,
has ordered the company to halt, because the federal agency views the process as making "drugs."
The FDA announced Aug. 6 that it wanted an injunction in federal court against the company, alleging "violations of current good manufacturing practice."
"Regenerative Sciences' cultured cell product is not approved by the FDA, and no adequate and well-controlled studies have been done to demonstrate its safety or effectiveness for any indication," the federal agency announced.
Wake up, America! Your country is about to disappear!
Karen Midthun, acting director for the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the announcement,
"FDA recognizes the importance of the development of novel and promising new therapies.
However, when companies like Regenerative Sciences fail to comply with FDA laws and regulations, they put the public's health at risk."
An FDA spokeswoman provided the announcement to WND but did not elaborate.
The agency, in a 2008 letter to the company, said, "In order to introduce or deliver for introduction a drug that is also a biological product into interstate commerce,
a valid biologics license must be in effect. Such licenses are issued only after a showing of safety and efficacy for the product's intended use.
While in the development stage, such products may be distributed for clinical use in humans only if the sponsor has an investigational new drug application in effect as specified by FDA regulations.
The mesenchymal stem cells utilized in your Regenexx procedure are not the subject of an approved biologics license application (BLA)
nor is there an investigational new drug application (IND) in effect. Therefore, your implantation of the mesenchymal stem cells for which
a valid license or IND is not in effect appears to violate the Act and the PHS Act and may result in FDA seeking relief as provided by law."
Centano said despite the company's repeated efforts to obtain a resolution in the disagreement, the FDA continually declined to respond – until Obamacare was adopted.
Now the federal agency has moved to "enjoin" the company's operations, and Centano told WND his company will fight.
"I think what we're seeing is a massive federalist move here. I think this represents that [for] Obamacare to work there has to be strict federal control over medicine."
He said that until now, medicine has been provided by doctors and regulated at the state level.
That's not going to work under Obamacare. The government is trying to get more and more positive control over what your doctor does or doesn't do."
Centano said the process he uses doesn't create a drug, as the FDA claims.
It's not more complicated than the "blood-doping" process that athletes sometimes in the past have attempted to improve their performance.
And under the guidance offered by the FDA, a doctor who treats knee pain with a steroid and a painkiller should go through the
process of acknowledging he or she is making a "drug" because of the combination of medications, he suggested.
TOP GOP Congressman ADMITS Obamacare here to stay
So again they're admitting Obamacare is here to stay. Anyone else not surprised?
Does anyone think Ron Paul's End the Mandate Bill will have a chance of not being sucked into the abyss like his Audit the Fed Bill?
I mean really individuals got several hundred thousand strangers to sign a petition and for all the hard work the bill dies because some gay pedophiliacs (BARNEY FRANK) are gimp slaves to evil puppeteer banksters.
No wonder so many people are giving up on the political system. I think now America will probably deevolve into a system where most everyone lives in a black market and the only way people will do business is by paying off the local gestapo or get really good at hiding their wealth. Smell the freedom.
The NWO didnt put Obama in power and pass O_care to give it up.
|CJ wrote: |
|The NWO didnt put Obama in power and pass O_care to give it up. |
I saw a documentary on the United Nations agendas last week(it was on youtube, can't remember the title of it) - among many of their agendas for decades, guess what was one of their endgames? You guessed it - UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. And this documentary was made in the *1990's*.
If I can dig it up, I'll post it here - but it's well worth watching.(ie-among their other "engineered" agendas are the "alien" environmental crisises).
Another Obamacare Surprise — A Real Estate Tax?
The Democrats in Congress have been caught in another grand theft through Obamacare.
This time, it’s taxing Real Estate transactions — starting in 2013 there is a 3.8% tax on all real estate sales effective in 2013 according to tax expert Paul Guppy in an article in Spokesman Review entitled “Health Law’s Heavy Impact.”
So the financial experts that were beginning to predict some recovery of the housing market in 2012 might have to reconsider their figures. Taxing something is the surest way to decrease whatever is being taxed….and also the surest way for people to try to work around the new rule with even more creative transfers of property or payment. Taking nearly $7,000 from the proceeds of the sale of an ‘average’ house will have an impact on the subsequent purchase by the seller who is now $7,000 poorer — which should drive the prices down on the whole. In short, this is a terrible idea — and another shot of class warfare, claiming funds from property owners to be used to fund health care for others.
This revelation of a new tax on something completely unrelated to Health Care should stoke the fires for repeal — the legislation must be completely scrapped, not fixed around the edges.
In addition, every Congressman and Senator who voted for this bill without reading it or considering the tentacles that it was wrapping around all aspects of our lives needs to be held to account.
[b]Every Last One of Them Should Be Defeated in November. Every One.
Note from Poppajoe: I heard this may be only on investment properties but it bothers me that people invest for their retirement just to have it skimmed by this crooked administration, it is still an underhanded way to steal money.
3 States Back Out of Obamacare
October 5, 2010
The Missouri initiative passed by 71%.
Now Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma will decide whether to approve constitutional amendments that would allow them to opt out of ObamaCare.
The 3 initiatives prohibit the government from forcing individuals to buy health care insurance, which violates the U.S. Constitution, and would allow patients and employers to pay providers directly without penalty. This protects state residents from the ongoing takeover of health care by government.
Federal judge upholds key provisions of health care law
October 7, 2010 A federal judge in Detroit upheld key provisions of Barack Obama’s landmark health reform law.
In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014,
a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March.
Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit — requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who don’t starting in 2014.
Steeh is the first judge nationally to rule on accusations that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring most people to buy health insurance or face penalities.
The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal center which sued along with four plaintiffs, said it plans to appeal the decision.
“I think it’s important that this decision be reversed to prevent Congress from overreaching the way it did in passing the original mandate,” said law center attorney Robert Muise.
He predicted the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
His clients opposed being forced to buy health insurance.
Nation-wide, several dozen lawsuits have been filed to stop the reforms.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and 19 other state attorney generals brought one of the challenges, which is set for oral arguments in Florida Dec. 16, according to Cox spokeswoman Joy Yearout.
The attorney generals’ suit argues that the federal government can’t force people to buy a product merely because they are U.S. citizens.
But federal attorneys say Congress can regulate interstate commerce and has imposed laws for more than 200 years requiring men to buy muskets and ammunition, for example.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department was pleased with the decision and added that it "will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation.''
Marjorie Mitchell, executive director of the Michigan Universal Health Care Network, the state’s most active proponent of federal health reforms,
said Steeh’s ruling “gives me some hope … all the cases are thrown out. We need this health care reform.”
The law was passed to provide health insurance to millions of uninsured people, including 1.3 in Michigan, and to make it more affordable and easier to understand.
According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, health care reforms will benefit 1.3 million people in Michigan who do not have insurance and lower health care costs for another 459,000 Michigan citizens through a national insurance exchange.
Health overhaul may lead to free birth control
Oct 31, 2011 "A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning.
But is birth control preventive medicine?
Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.
For many medical and public health experts, there's no debate.
"There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health," said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.
"We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
So far, most other religious conservatives have stayed out of the debate, though that could change. Some say they are concerned about any requirement that might include the morning-after pill. The Food and Drug Administration classifies it as birth control; some religious conservatives see it as an abortion drug.
Jeanne Monahan, a health policy expert at the conservative Family Research Council, said her group would oppose any mandate that lacks a conscience exemption for moral and religious reasons. She said there's "great suspicion" that a major abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is leading the push for free birth control.
AARP Blames ObamaCare for Hike in Employee Health Insurance Costs
In 2009, the AARP argued that the health care law was a good deal for seniors. That remains to be seen, and a large number of seniors seem to disagree. Regardless, it appears it’s less of a good deal for employees.
AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.
And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.
IMHO-the whole thing with these "legal battles" appears to be nothing but a show. But that's just me-read between the lines in this article.
Long legal fight ahead for health law
WASHINGTON – The scorecard on the legal fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is two judges in favor and one against.
But these are the early rounds in preliminary bouts. The one that really counts — a showdown at the Supreme Court — is at least a year away.
The health care law suffered its first major legal setback Monday when a federal judge declared that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges. A number of other lawsuits were dismissed early on, without rulings on the substance of the law.
The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled. That put him in the same camp as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — the Republican who filed the suit — and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January.
But Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration.
"An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.
Another judge in Florida, a GOP appointee, has not ruled in another lawsuit — brought by 20 states against the legislation — though he has signaled trouble for the administration. Arguments in that lawsuit, which also challenges whether the federal government can require states to expand their Medicaid programs, get under way Thursday in Florida.
Nevertheless, the White House predicted it would prevail in the Supreme Court.
"Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," President Barack Obama said Monday in an interview with television station WFLA in Tampa, Fla.
"You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things."
Federal appeals courts based in Atlanta, Cincinnati and Richmond make up the next set of judges who will have their say on the law, though their rulings are at least months away.
Once appellate judges have weighed in, the next appeal is to the Supreme Court.
In April, Justice Stephen Breyer predicted an eventual high court hearing for the health care overhaul. That might not happen until after the 2012 elections, though. What is the establishment's obsession with 2012??
In the short term, the latest court ruling hands potent ammunition to GOP opponents as they prepare to assert control in the new Congress with promises to repeal the law. Obama in turn has vowed to veto any repeal legislation and appears likely to prevail since Democrats retain control of the Senate. Republicans also have discussed trying to starve the law of funding.
Whatever the eventual outcome, Monday's ruling could create uncertainty around the administration's efforts to gradually put into effect the landmark legislation extending health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. And it can only increase the public's skepticism, which has not significantly receded in the months since the law's enactment, defying Obama's prediction that it would become more popular as Americans got to know it.
Obama aides said implementation would not be affected, noting that the individual insurance requirement and other major portions of the legislation don't take effect until 2014. Some provisions of the law took effect in September, six months after its passage, including free preventive care, an elimination of lifetime limits on coverage and requirements for insurers cover children with pre-existing health conditions and allow adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
Hudson limited his ruling to striking down the so-called individual mandate, leaving intact other portions of the law. But administration officials and outside analysts agree that important provisions of the legislation could not go forward without the requirement for everyone to be insured. That's because insurers need to have large pools of healthy people, who are cheap to insure, or it is not financially tenable for them to extend coverage to those with pre-existing medical problems.
20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law
PENSACOLA, Fla. – Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways. The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.
President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.
Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.
In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.
In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.
The judge questioned the Obama administration attorneys about whether the government is reaching beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
"A lot of people, myself included for years, have no health insurance," said Vinson, who described being a law student and paying cash to the doctor who delivered his first child.
"It amounted to about $100 a pound," he said, laughing.
Vinson also grilled government lawyers about their contention that people can be required to have health insurance because everyone needs medical care. Under that logic, he said, Americans could be forced to wear shoes or buy groceries or clothes.
But administration attorney Ian Heath Gershengorn said health insurance is different because it covers catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.
"Those costs, when they come, are unpredictable and substantial," he said.
Gershengorn also defended the administration against the states' claim that it was coercing them into participating in the health care overhaul. The states say the have no choice but to go along with the federal program because billions in Medicaid dollars are at stake.
Gershengorn said the states see huge benefits from Medicaid and the federal government is covering the bulk of the health care overhaul costs.
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Obama Embraces Medicare Death Panels
December 27, 2010 During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.
Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.
But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing - "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.
death,panel,obama,palin,medicare,ruleThe new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”
Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.
Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.
AARP Blames ObamaCare for Hike in Employee Health Insurance Costs
January 4, 2011
In 2009, the AARP argued that the health care law was a good deal for seniors. That remains to be seen, and a large number of seniors seem to disagree. Regardless, it appears it’s less of a good deal for employees.
AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.
And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.
Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals
Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.
Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it's Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.
Blue Shield's action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.
San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.
"We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members," the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.
In all, Blue Shield said, 193,000 policyholders would see increases averaging 30% to 35%, the result of three separate rate hikes since October.
Nearly 1 in 4 of the affected customers will see cumulative increases of more than 50% over five months. Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — The Republican plan to repeal the healthcare law would drive up federal deficits by $230 billion by 2021, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded Thursday, undercutting GOP efforts to seize the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
Overturning the law President Obama signed in March would also leave 32 million more Americans without health coverage, the analysts concluded.
And although health insurance premiums would be lower in some cases, the analysts estimated that without the law, consumers would get skimpier coverage and many would actually pay more because they would lose subsidies included in the new law.
House Republican leaders quickly dismissed the new projection from the CBO as unrealistic. Some analysts have also questioned whether all the savings in the sweeping overhaul will be realized.
"CBO is entitled to their opinion," House Speaker John A. Boehner (R- Ohio) said. "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing healthcare law will increase the deficit."
THIS IS ONE of MANY MANY EXAMPLES OF HOW THE PRESS LIES - LIES!!!
This is not an error .. ITS a LIE!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - LIED! ... AGAIN!
January 07, 2011
Can you imagine the sheer audacity of outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sermonizing that repealing Obamacare would do "very serious violence to the national debt and deficit"? This is the woman whose four-year tenure as speaker saw the national debt explode from $8.67 trillion to $14.01 trillion.
She's the lady who boasted, "Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go." Such is the state of Pelosi's credibility that even 19 of her Democratic colleagues voted against her for speaker.
When it comes to a wide spectrum of issues, I'm not sure which planet Pelosi and her ilk of liberals inhabit, but the Obamacare fiasco takes their otherworldliness to another level altogether – and that's being charitable because it assumes they're innocently unaware of how wrong they are.
Everyone knows that with Obamacare's government-mandated increases in demand and in government control over prices, shortages and rationing are inevitable. (That's either why they've established their little bureaucratic boards or their excuse for establishing them; the boards will ultimately dictate decisions concerning choice of care – including, dare I say it, end-of-life care.) Obama promised universal coverage, which won't happen, but what he didn't tell us is that his socialized plan could only increase coverage, if at all, by reducing access to, choice of and quality of care.
Obama also forgot to tell us when stumping for the bill that he would appoint Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, whose role will be greatly expanded under Obamacare to define the quality of care for every insurance plan and set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates based on the CMS' assessment about the value in various medical treatments. If you doubted before that Obama's motive in socializing medicine was, well, socialistic, then that doubt should have been removed with the Berwick appointment. For Berwick is the man who loves Britain's socialized medicine and who said proudly, "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional." Just more evidence Obamacare was never about reducing budgetary pressures.
Moreover, everyone who reads and watches TV knows that Obama and his Democratic congressional conspirators funnied up the numbers to obtain a neutral Congressional Budget Office scoring so Obamacare could pass in the first place – for example, temporarily (and dishonestly) removing the "doc fix" from the bill, counting mythical Medicare funds in the calculations, and front-loading tax increases while deferring expenses, all of which grossly distorted the projected budgetary impact of the unpopular bill.
But the ink wasn't even dry on Obama's signature before abundant instances of other flagrant misrepresentations came to light, and since then, we've seen other evidence of just how cynical this entire operation has been from the beginning.
We soon learned that Obamacare doesn't allocate nearly enough money to cover the estimated 5.6 million to 7 million Americans with pre-existing medical conditions who will qualify for high-risk insurance pools. We discovered that the CBO estimate didn't factor in $115 billion worth of "discretionary" expenditures even though there's no question those expenditures will be made.
David Limbaugh book,
Crimes Against Liberty
An Indictment of President Barack Obama
UPDATE 1-Healthcare vote postponed due to shooting - Cantor
WASHINGTON | Sat Jan 8, 2011 8:23pm EST
WASHINGTON Jan 8 (Reuters) - The House of Representatives will postpone next week's vote to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare reform legislation due to the shooting of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Saturday.
"All legislation currently scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives next week is being postponed so that we can take whatever actions may be necessary in light of today's tragedy," Cantor said in a prepared statement.
Giffords had received threats for her support of the healthcare reform bill and her office in Tucson was vandalized after the measure passed Congress last March.
Repeal of the law is a priority of Republicans who won control of the House in November elections, and it is expected to pass the House easily when the vote takes place.
The effort is not expected to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, however.
Cantor said he would release a revised House schedule on Sunday.
"It is horrifying that she was exposed to such violence at an event designed to reach the people she represents," Cantor said.
(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Philip Barbara)
House set to vote on healthcare repeal
January 13, 2011
The U.S. House of Representatives will resume thoughtful consideration on repealing Barack Hussein Obama's healthcare overhaul the week of January 18-21.
The House vote was postponed from January 12th after the bloody slaughter in Arizona.
I will follow House action here - AMERICA NEWS
8 States already plan to ignore ObamaCare
January 20, 2011
What if states repudiated a law Washington DC made, and threatened to prosecute those enforcing it?
8 states consider a blanket nullification of the Obamacare nationalization of health-care in their legislatures.
"Thomas Jefferson advised, 'Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers ... a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy,'" states the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government.
"When states pass laws to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal 'laws,' regulations and mandates – it's not rebellion ... it's duty," the organization states.
States already have been moving forward aggressively on several issues, with eight approving firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, 15 actively defying Washington on cannabis laws and seven passing acts that reject health-care mandates.
Now, however, they are moving a step beyond, according to center founder Michael Boldin.
7 states have introduced acts to nullify the federal health-care reform, including New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming.
A similar proposal is expected to be filed in Idaho within a matter of days.
Obamacare already has been repealed in the U.S. House, where the vote was 245-189, which included 3 Democrats backing repeal.
While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to prevent the issue from coming up for discussion, Republicans say they will work on getting the Senate, which has a slight Democrat majority, to discuss the issue.
Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional
January 31, 2011
A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, ruled that the reform law's so-called "individual mandate" went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.
He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional. The issue will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.
Two other federal judges have rejected challenges to the individual mandate.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.
Obamacare has a week to live
March 3, 2011
Obamacare is NOT Constitutional, and Obama KNOWS it. He is essentially in contempt of court.
Judge tells Obama he has a week to save Obamacare. The clock is ticking on plans to implement Obamacare.
A federal judge gave Obama 7 days to file an expedited appeal either to the U.S. Supreme Court or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If they miss that deadline, it could face an injunction that would bring its implementation of Obamacare to a screeching halt in 26 states.
Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling chastised the government for dragging its feet before seeking a stay, or temporary suspension, of his January ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
Judge Vinson previously ruled that requiring individuals to make a federally mandated purchase (buying a healthcare plan) exceeds their Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
It was not expected that they would ignore the order and continue to implement the Act, and then file a belated (ridiculous) motion to clarify.
Rick Warren's Health Plan working hand-hand with Obamacare
When Rick Warren launched his year-long Daniel Plan at a Saddleback Health and Fitness Seminar, he introduced three key doctors that would be working on this agenda with him. The fact that these three doctors are easily identifiable as New Age “guru” type doctors is indisputable. Their own public record is very obvious – each man in one way or another has connected himself with various elements of the New Age. One need only “Google” their names to find their connections to activities, practices and personnel at high levels in the New Age movement.
The question might be asked: Why didn’t Dr. Rick pick medical doctors who were Christians? Not nominal Christians, but sincere evangelical Christians! Surely there are highly esteemed, reputable, well-credentialed Christian physicians at the top of their field in various hospitals, universities or medical research laboratories! But Rick Warren picked the Oprah Winfrey type of New Age guru to be his guides with the Daniel Plan – the Hollywood hype type of doctors.
An official "Daniel Plan Pastoral Response" to the question "Why did Saddleback Church choose to use these doctors, who have been linked to other beliefs?" can be viewed HERE. In this classic insipid Warrenesque response it is claimed that these doctors "are in no way advising our church on spiritual matters." But given the fact that these doctors have specialized in integrating their spirituality with their views on medicine and health, this is not an honest answer. (View Daniel Plan FAQ sheet HERE).
Furthermore, these doctors have websites that are hype-driven – one can hardly even gain entry into Dr. Daniel Amen’s website without taking the “Brain Type Test” or jumping through other marketing hoops.
So why the pizzazz? Genuine Christian physicians might be more interested in the spiritual welfare of the sheep, they might be gently prodding about sins such as drunkenness or gluttony in a healthcare model. They might take a stewardship of the body approach. But, rather, the healthcare gurus of the Daniel Plan follow the New Age model of healthcare reform. Take Dr. Mark Hyman's plan as described on a YouTube video presentation:
“We have a new model emerging which we call P4 Medicine…”
Personalized: Genetic and environmental variations drive individual treatment
Predictive: Tailored health strategy based on personalized map of health risks with traditional and novel biomarkers
Preventive: Proactive vs. reactive approaches that shifts focus from illness to wellness, from disease treatment to functional enhancement
Participatory: Empowers and engages patient
“[Th]e future of medicine is going to be personalized. It is going to look at your genetics, at your environment and how those variations affect your health in this moment.
The future of medicine is taking the data in your story, which is called Narrativomics – the data in your narrative, in your story – and making the sense… out of the patterns in that. Genomics…. Which is really looking for the patterns in the data….
And it is also preventive because we are going to be able to understand how to best look at a health map on a predictive model by looking at all the data points in your story and in your biomarkers and tracking that forward to see what your health risks are and how to create a personalized plan to help you get health and stay healthy.
And it is also participatory because it means you need to be engaged. Its not just taking a pill that your doctor gives you because you are going to treat some symptom of some disease and not to do anything else except pop that pill. So its very participatory and you have to be an engaged user of health care.”
“And the future of medicine is not going to be creating a hypothesis, as we do now, and then doing a study and collecting data, and analyzing the data. It is going to be looking for patterns in the data that already exists, in the patterns in your story, in the patterns in the biomarkers, and using the computational power that we have now to create a model of thinking about disease that sees patterns, and connections and relationships and linkages in ways that we don’t now….
“The way we think about disease really is passé. In fact, recently at a conference...the CEO of a drug company said that in the future there will be no more drugs for blockbuster diseases, only drugs for blockbuster mechanisms. And the reason for this is that disease doesn’t exist…. Diseases all appear real but they are simply the downstream effects from upstream mechanisms and causes....
There is no depression
There is no bipolar disease
There is no autism
There is no ADHD
There is no dementia." 
The input-driven model of healthcare reform is not a model that treats disease. It is outcome-based healthcare. It is a New Age model that denies the reality of disease and focuses on wellness, as we explained in our earlier post, 3-Legged "Health" Care. Therefore the Daniel Plan is all about what you are putting into your body's system. Note: what you put into your body can be measured and assessed, monitored and databanked.... and controlled.
Dr. Hyman's model of healthcare focuses almost entirely on the brain and genetics, which raises many disturbing questions about his research role in the Daniel Plan. Furthermore, Dr. Hyman extrapolates certain highly specific and credible medical research from cutting edge work on autism, for example the "Gut and Psychology Syndrome", and irresponsibly applies it across the entire spectrum of disease.
Who can afford this healthcare plan? When listening to Dr. Hyman’s presentation, it is patently obvious that only the rich need apply! Who can afford his model of health, which stacks everything up front? The "Daniel Plan Health Grill Menu" includes high-end meals like:
Agave Glazed Salmon Tacos with Napa cabbage slaw and vine ripe tomatoes served on natural blue corn tortillas and topped with house made poblano-lime avocado sauce
Lemon & Herb Chicken Wrap with shaved red onion, shredded lettuce, tomato, Persian cucumber and Greek yogurt sauce served on a zucchini flax Omega wrap
All Natural Grass Fed Organic Beef Burger with pickled red onions and slow roasted tomato served 'protein-style' sandwiched between two crisp lettuce leaves (fresh baked focaccia roll available upon request).
The suggested retail price for grass-fed ground beef is $8.50 per pound. Check out prices and availability of poblano peppers, Greek yogurt, flax Omega wraps, and blue corn tortillas in your local grocery store (if you can even get these items!).
“Inputs” means that people have to watch their diets, eat organically, purchase supplements, follow strict dietary and exercise regimens, reduce their stress levels, eliminate caffeine and sodas, etc. etc. The upper middle-class American might be able to afford such a lavish lifestyle, which happens to be politically and environmentally correct. But what about the average family who is simply trying to make ends meet? How can they possibly afford the upfront costs of the “input” healthcare model?
Furthermore, and related to this excessive focus on “inputs,” is the fact that there may be a profit-motive with these guru doctors regarding their corporate interests in supplements and health care accessories! A Daniel Plan report on "Vitamin Supplements" titled "Dr. Mark Hyman takes the guesswork out of vitamin supplements" links over to Dr. Hyman's store http://store.drhyman.com/ where one can buy supplements (see also HERE). Read through Dr. Hyman's recommendations and see how your family budget can manage these expensive supplements.
On the Wikipedia entry for Dr. Oz, under the category “Controversy” one can read of his close association with the pharmaceutical industry in one of his marketing schemes:
"RealAge drug marketing
"Oz is a spokesman and advisor for the website RealAge.com, which The New York Times has criticized for its pharmaceutical marketing practices. The site solicits medical information from visitors to determine a visitor’s biological age and then uses the visitor's medical profile for pharmaceutical marketing purposes. As The Times reporter explained the significance of this fact: "While few people would fill out a detailed questionnaire about their health and hand it over to a drug company looking for suggestions for new medications, that is essentially what RealAge is doing."
At a separate Wikipedia entry for RealAge, which happened to get its big start on the Oprah Winfrey Show, we learn that
“On this website, users typically fill out a questionnaire about their health history, which is then used to generate personalized content, including highly targeted advertisements. Most revenue comes from pharmaceutical companies paying to advertise their drugs to individuals who have taken the website test and become members."
These doctor/gurus also profit from their involvement with HealthCorps, which is described as,
"...a proactive health movement founded by heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz, is fighting the obesity and mental resilience crisis by getting American students and communities across the country to take charge of their health. Our three priorities are: Educating the Student Body– our in-school program to empower and educate youth and faculty about their bodies, their environments and their abilities to affect them.
"Like a Peace Corps for Health, HealthCorps is a national service and peer mentoring initiative. In high schools, HealthCorps 'Coordinators' empower teens in underserved populations to make simple lifestyle changes to enhance their well-being and resilience and take the message to friends, families and neighbors."
It is an old political trick to engage in public advocacy work in order to further one’s corporate causes and fill one’s corporate coffers. The more one advocates, and works the potential market, the more one profits! Once again, the 3-legged stool model of Rick Warren's Daniel Plan is in evidence. The private sector profits while the public healthcare agenda is furthered, and all the while the church is doing the cheerleading.
The connection between these three doctors and Obamacare is yet another issue. We'll look at that later. Meanwhile, remember our faithful and eternal Caretaker. He has a better plan for us, which has nothing to do with vast human agendas and New Age medicine. He tells us,
"Fear not, for I am with you;
Be not dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you, yes, I will help you,
I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’"
Obama reaps victory as Cincinnati judges uphold Obamacare
6/29/11 CINCINNATI OHIO
In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati handed the administration a victory Wednesday by agreeing that the government can require a minimum amount of insurance for Americans.
A Republican-appointed judge joined with a Democratic appointee for the 2-1 majority in another milestone for Obama's hotly debated signature domestic initiative — the first time a Republican federal court appointee has affirmed the merits of the law.
The White House and Justice Department hailed the panel's affirmation of an earlier ruling by a federal court in Michigan; opponents of the law said challenges will continue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is a conservative law center's lawsuit arguing on behalf of plaintiffs that potentially requiring them to buy insurance or face penalties could subject them to financial hardship. The suit warns that the law is too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.
The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.
The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.
White House adviser Stephanie Cutter called the ruling "another victory" for millions of Americans and small businesses benefiting from the overhaul.
"At the end of the day, we are confident the constitutionality of these landmark reforms will be upheld," she said in a statement.
The law center predicted its case would have a good shot on appeal.
"Clearly our case won't resolve all the issues, because we don't raise the state rights issue, but we are the only one that is currently ripe for Supreme Court review that raises the challenge on behalf of an individual," said David Yerushalmi, an attorney for the law center.
The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a lengthy opinion with disagreement on some issues, moving unusually quickly in delivering its decision less than a month after hearing oral arguments.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority.
A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.
"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress' Commerce Clause authority would be," warned dissenting Judge James Graham of Columbus. "What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?"
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the Bush appointee, delivered the decisive vote, although his opinion raised questions and noted the unusual nature of a law directed at someone who chooses inaction, referring to those "who prize that most American of freedoms: to be left alone."
But the government argued that telling someone to buy health insurance, something that virtually everyone needs and is part of a sweeping effort, isn't the same as ordering them to buy a car or a vegetable.
"The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far, but it also may offer one more example of a policy necessity giving birth to an inventive (and constitutional) congressional solution," Sutton wrote.
The opinion by Sutton, a well-respected conservative jurist, will be studied closely by other courts, said a law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond.
"His opinion is comprehensive and cautious and careful, but I think it comes out to pretty much the same conclusion as Judge Martin's," Carl Tobias said in a telephone interview.
An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 16-seat 6th Circuit has one vacancy.
Among those supporting the center in court documents in the case — titled Thomas More Law Center, et al, vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al — were Republican presidential candidates Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul and several other members of Congress including Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio.
More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues such as states' rights. Earlier decisions at the U.S. district court level have found Republican-appointed judges opposing and Democrat-appointed judges affirming.
Hearing the project at first sounds like it's a great one that would help and contribute to the improvement of living of the citizens but just recently, a Judge rules provision of Obamacare unconstitutional. A significant part in President Obama's 2010 health-care reform regulation has been rule against by a judge in Pennsylvania. Judge Christopher C. Conner determined Tuesday against the constitutionality of the part requiring Americans to cover insurance or to be fined.
How To Opt-Out Of ObamaCare!How To Opt-Out Of ObamaCare!
Even though the health care bill has passed and you must comply as a U.S. citizen, there is a way to effectively "opt-out" of the coming health care nightmare
by finding affordable 5 star health care abroad. Only a handful of people know these secrets.
For the average, hardworking American, U.S. health care is badly broken. The system is so dysfunctional that even the most ambitious legislative plans can’t fix it.
Obamacare won’t change a thing. In fact, it will make things far worse.
And even if positive changes ever do get enacted, it would be like applying a little bit of spackling compound here and hammering on a few new shingles there ... while the truth is... the very foundation is crumbling. Here are seven reasons why any kind of legislation coming out of Washington—no matter if it’s written by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or Socialists—won’t fix what ails this badly broken system.
7 Shocking Secrets Behind the Total Breakdown of The U.S. Health Care System
Reason #1 Quality health care is already in short supply
Right now, there aren’t nearly enough primary care doctors ... not to mention physicians assistants and nurse practitioners ... to serve us. We’re short over 16,000 family doctors right now. And the shortage will only grow worse in the next decade. And that’s just general practitioners. Have you tried to get in to see a specialist lately? The wait can be three or four months – or longer!
And that’s just today. If Obamacare is fully enacted, demand for doctors’ appointments will only increase, instantly adding 32 million more Americans who will be demanding medical services of all kinds. The spike in demand will be huge and felt within weeks!
But what about the supply? It will actually shrink, because according to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, close to half—46%—of primary care physicians will quit if health care “reform” becomes law. Fewer doctors will struggle to serve more patients. And that’s a prescription for disaster!
Forget plan B, the emergency room
It used to be that if you couldn’t get in to see a doctor and things got really bad, you could go to the emergency room. For many people, that’s no longer an option. Why? Because public hospitals are closing left and right. With the economy in dire straits, cash-strapped local governments are slashing budgets wherever they can. And city and county hospitals are in the crosshairs. Who will take up the slack? For-profit hospitals, of course – but just as with doctors, demand will far outstrip the supply. Get in line, take a number, and hope you don’t die while you’re waiting!
Reason #2 Medical bills are literally bankrupting hardworking, middle-class Americans
It’s no secret that bankruptcies are at an all time high. What’s not as well known is this startling fact: the majority of them are driven by the cost of healthcare! A whopping 6 out of 10 people who declare bankruptcy do so because of medical bills. Families who go bankrupt have almost $18,000 in out of pocket medical expenses. Here’s the kicker: most of those families have insurance! How can this be? Keep reading.
Reason #3 Insurance companies slash their costs... at your expense
More and more, insurance companies are getting between patients and their doctors, refusing to pay for perfectly legitimate treatments. We’ve all heard the horror stories. Bean counters seize upon the slightest excuse to deny your claims. To them, you’re a number on an actuarial sheet, and they’ll do anything to make sure they profit, even if it’s at the expense of your suffering. And when they won’t pay up?
Few people, when they’re ill, have the stamina to fight their insurance company as well as their illness. Instead, they give up and look elsewhere to fund their treatments. They’ll tap into their home equity. They’ll max out credit cards and take out loans. It’s no wonder so many people lose their homes and are forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills.
Most of them don’t know the secret to obtaining 5-star medical treatment, with no waiting, at a fraction of the cost. But you will, in just a few moments!
Are you hoping that because you have a “Cadillac” insurance plan this won’t affect you? Don't be too sure! If the recent health care legislation isn’t overturned, it’s only a matter of time until government regulations force “Cadillac” insurers out of business.
Reason #4 Nobody knows what health care really costs
Would you have new carpet installed in your home if the carpet sales rep couldn’t tell you up front what the price tag was? Of course not! But when it comes to medical tests and treatments, many of us don’t ask. We assume our insurance will pick up most of the tab and we’ll figure out a way to pay for the rest of it. And this is just one reason costs are so high.
If you need to check into the hospital for treatment, they can’t tell you up front what it will cost. If you’ve ever seen an itemized hospital bill, you’ll know why. The same lack of transparency goes for all kinds of outpatient treatments and diagnostics, too. When nobody knows or cares what the real cost is, there’s no incentive to keep costs down.
Reason #5 Government regulations stand in the way of you getting the care you need
The government has all kinds of ways to limit your access to health care. If you’re on Medicare, for instance, there are restrictions on what doctors you can see, how much they’ll pay for a particular procedure, and more. Even having good insurance is no guarantee. If you want a treatment that’s even slightly out of the mainstream, good luck. All too often, overly zealous state medical boards don’t think it’s “customary or regular,” and go after doctors who offer proven, effective, but less common treatments.
The new health care legislation limits your care another way, too. If you’ve ever had a Flexible Savings Account (FSA), you know that you can put pre-tax money into it to help pay for things like medical bills. FSA's are a great way to fund important and necessary expenses, like co-pays and deductibles, laser eye surgery, braces, and treatments that your regular plan doesn’t cover.
But now, Uncle Sam thinks you’re getting too large of a tax break. The new law caps FSA's at $2500 per plan. What a joke! One or two tests or procedures, and that money is GONE. One colonoscopy or one MRI, and you’ve blasted through 80% of your year’s FSA money. One root canal with accompanying crown, and your account is empty!
You’d better hope and pray everyone in your family stays really healthy!
Reason #6 Unsatisfactory, unsafe hospital experiences
Any time you’re hospitalized in the United States, you face two big obstacles to a smooth recovery. The first is the care you get while you’re there. You’d better take along a companion to stay with you 24/7. Why? Because there simply aren’t enough skilled nurses available to ensure adequate care. About one out of every seven nursing positions (13%) go unfilled, and that number will increase to one out of five – a whopping 20% - in 5 more years.
What happens if you’re admitted to a hospital that isn’t fully staffed with qualified nurses (and most are not)? Your health risks soar – you’re far more likely to get bedsores, infections, pneumonia... or even die early!
And it’s a vicious cycle. As the remaining nurses are forced to work overtime, they become more stressed. Many leave the field because of the overwhelming demands place on them. Others are drained from the hospital system to try and plug the gaps and stand in as nurse practitioners for overworked primary care doctors.
The other big problem with hospitalization? They can’t show you the door fast enough! Often you’re discharged too early and sent home to fend for yourself. It’s not because they don’t want to keep you; it’s because your insurer is only willing to pay for a limited stay, even if you should stay longer.
Reason #7 Lack of innovation and choice
Institutionalized medicine is the antithesis of choice and innovation. Entrenched interests – the American Medical Association, the insurance companies, and the prescription drug cartels – are in cahoots to stifle competition. This means that by hook or by crook, they only allow you access to “proven” treatments.
Are you “socially useful” enough to deserve medical care?
It’s extremely hard to get permission to try anything innovative – even for people who are terminally ill! In fact, many treatments that have been proven successful in other countries are outlawed here. If you want ozone therapy, for instance, a safe and effective treatment for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and more, you can forget about it here. You’ll have to go to Germany, Cuba, or Russia to get it.
This heavy-handed approach to what’s acceptable in medicine and what’s not effectively limits your choice of treatment at the doctor’s office. If you have cancer, for instance, chances are your doctor will suggest chemo. You can forget about the many innovative, non-toxic treatments, such as ozone therapy, that are offered in other countries. Again, these treatments are illegal in the United States.
Don’t be fooled... just follow the money. Chemo is where the real profits are for oncologists. But if you’re expecting a regimen that’s carefully crafted for your situation, think again. Chemotherapy today in many hospitals is more akin to a factory assembly line. You’re likely to get the “chemo du jour,” a chemical cocktail that might work for you, or it might not. (Rest assured, though, the doctor will profit handsomely from the procedure.)
If Obamacare becomes law, it will stifle choice and innovation even further. The government can only control health care costs if it controls what is and isn’t offered. That means cookie-cutter medicine, no matter how unique your situation is! Please read that again! This is a dangerous road to be traveling on.
The fact of the matter is this... the health care “reform” legislation passed by Congress is only the first step. The real agenda? Bypass health insurance companies altogether and create a single-payer system – the government!
But we have only to look at our friends in England to see what will happen. The average waiting time for surgery in the UK is downright shameful. Details .............
Senate defeats Republican bill seeking to reverse Obama rule on birth control costs
March 1, 2012 WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday defeated a Republican effort to roll back President Barack Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage in the first vote on an issue that raised questions of religious and women's rights and riled Americans in this volatile election year.
The 51-48 vote killed an amendment that would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control. Obama's Democrats said the measure would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection.
Republicans argued that the law needs to be reversed because it violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom by forcing insurers and employers to pay for contraception even if their faith forbids its use. Democrats said the amendment, Mo, was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law.
Both parties were using the issue to rally their bases; Republicans sought to hold together conservatives and others in the midst of an unsettled battle for the presidential nomination. And for Obama, there is no constituency more crucial to his re-election chances than women.
$1 Abortions in ObamaCare
It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.
Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.
666 IMPLANTS CHANGE YOUR DNA
L.A. Marzulli, Sid Roth
Bible codes, prophecy, UFOs, what are they?
Marzulli calls them inter-dimensional beings, I call them demons.
The RFID chip will corrupt your DNA, but you will be told it will perfect it.
I first heard about cattle and animal mutilation 40 years ago.
DNA changing comes under gene therapy to help with diseases. The theory is, you get a virus that is adapted to spread the change instead of the viral infection.
Individual Mandate Is Ryan Tax Credit by Other Name
-- Tax credits: Under various health-care proposals -- including the plan of Republican Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin -- the tax code is changed to give families a tax credit for purchasing private health insurance. Families that chose to go without insurance, or simply can’t afford it, would not receive the tax credit.
All of these plans share the same basic approach: They impose a financial penalty, either before or after the fact, on those who forgo health insurance. Single payer does it through taxes, Medicare Part D through premiums and Ryan’s plan through tax credits.
Now consider the individual mandate. Here’s how it works: Starting in 2016, those who don’t carry insurance will be annually assessed a fine of $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher.
Skeptics of government should clearly prefer the individual mandate to single payer. In fact, the individual mandate was developed by conservative economist Mark Pauly as an alternative to single payer. “We did it because we were concerned about the specter of single payer insurance, which isn’t market-oriented, and we didn’t think was a good idea,” Pauly told me last year. In the 1990s, the individual mandate was also the Republican counterproposal to President Bill Clinton’s health-care bill, and in 2005, it was the centerpiece of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s health-care reforms.
The Medicare (FFSOMED) Part D model doesn’t really work as an alternative to the individual mandate because it requires the federal government to set the cost of premiums. That’s possible with the over-65 set, because the government controls the market. To import that idea to the under-65 market, however, would require vastly more governmental intrusion into the health-care space.
The tax credit, meanwhile, is essentially indistinguishable from the mandate. Ryan’s plan offers a $2,300 refundable tax credit to individuals and a $5,700 credit to families who purchase private health insurance. Of course, tax credits aren’t free. In effect, what Ryan’s plan does is raises taxes and/or cut services by the cost of his credit and then rebate the difference to everyone who signs up for health insurance. It’s essentially a roundabout version of the individual mandate, which directly taxes people who don’t buy health insurance in the first place.
More on Congressman Paul Ryan
Beast * 666
Sinate Healthcare bill HR-3200, the bill of the Beast
US Congress never READ the bill before they PASSED it in March 2010, they are puppets of the Beast.
The microchip will be mandatory under the obama healthcare plan, that is in the legistlation congress passed 2 years ago.
That has already caused several hospitals and doctors offices to shut down.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, states on his website:
Buried deep within the 1,000+ pages of the massive US Health Care Bill in a non-discussed section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521- National Medical Device Registry.
This new law, when fully implemented, provides the framework for making the United States the first Nation in the World to require an RFID chip implanted in humans.
Beast TV ads for RFID chip implanted in YOU - on USA TV!
After facing her own controversy for questions about her Native-American heritage, Elizabeth Warren, the likely Democratic nominee in the Massachusetts Senate race, has accused Sen. Scott Brown of being a hypocrite after he told the Boston Globe that he still insures his 23-year-old daughter, Ayla, on his health care plan.
Brown is the Republican senator whose election in January, 2010, broke the Democrats filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, forcing them to re-organize their plan for passing health care legislation. During his tenure in Congress, he has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act three times, a provision of which allows children to stay on their health care until they turn 26.
"Brown's still promising to repeal the very reforms that allow him and the parents of 2.5 million other young adults to keep their kids covered," Warren spokeswoman Alethea Harney said in a statement. "It's not right. Scott Brown spells health care: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y."
But Massachusetts' state health care law, which served as a model in many ways for the Affordable Care Act, has the same provision, and Brown has long expressed his support for that law, supporting it when he was in the state legislature.
"I've said right from the beginning, that if there are things that we like, we should take advantage of them and bring them back here to Massachusetts," Brown said Monday.
While the Massachusetts health care law only applies to residents of the commonwealth, Brown has expressed his support for this particular provision of the Affordable Care Act, noting in an interview with the Lowell Sun in 2010 that he would like to keep two parts of the Affordable Care Act: the provision allowing children to stay on their parents insurance until 26, along with the catastrophic-coverage provision.
Still, the situation might prove problematic for Brown.
"There's no way that he can escape the all-too-evident hypocrisy of placing his daughter under his own insurance, insurance that is provided to him as a member of Congress by the U.S. Government," said Jeffrey Berry, professor of political science at Tufts University in Medford-Somerville.
The timing is also unfortunate for Brown, who had started out the week in a good situation as a result of the negative coverage Warren had been receiving in light of the questions surrounding her Native-American ancestry.
Warren, 62, came under fire after the Boston Herald reported that Harvard University, where Warren is a law professor, had promoted her as a minority member of their faculty. Warren had listed herself as Native American, and that identification is facing scrutiny after genealogists traced her Native-American ancestry back to her great-great-great-grandmother - who was Cherokee - making Warren 1/32 nd Native American.
"I think it comes at a particularly unfortunate time for him because Elizabeth Warren is having a rough week because of the revelations concerning her Native-American heritage and the press has been awful, and this has given her an opportunity to volley back," Berry said.
As Berry noted, Warren and Brown, 52, signed a pledge to keep outside spending groups away from their race. The pledge is being honored by both candidates, but as a result they are forced to fling attacks directly at one another, portending a nasty race ahead.
"It's inevitable in a Senate race that when one candidate is disadvantaged, they're going to have to respond," Berry said. "There was no question that this race was going to become more negative and we're simply seeing it in May and rather than maybe September."
Christian families will suffer
Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare poses grave consequences for American families. The individual mandate is a
profound attack on our liberties, it will force taxpayers to fund the slaughtering of babies (abortions),
violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.
OBAMACARE Replaced U.S. Constitution
SCOTUS upheld mandate June 28, 2012
Wow...look at the pot calling the kettle black!
'Pastor' Rick Warren - ‘I’d go to jail rather than cave in’ on Obamacare mandate
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, February 9, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Rick Warren, perhaps the nation’s most influential evangelical pastor, has tweeted he would “go to jail” rather than cave in to a government mandate that violates God’s commandments.
Pastor Rick Warren, pastor of the 20,000-member Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, tweeted his defiance of the Obama administration’s requirements that religious institutions cover all forms of contraception, including abortifacients like Ella and the IUD, as part of their health care plans.
On Tuesday, Warren addressed the issue three times on his Twitter feed.
“I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement [sic.] mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29,” he wrote.
666 * Are they chipping hospital patients without their consent?
October 13, 2012
Today my wife went to the doctors office for some check-ups and she was getting tired of being asked for her ID and insurance card as this was the third time in a month. They already have her name on file and the receptionist is familiar with her so she was a bit irate of this constant asking of her ID and she said so. The head receptionist leaned over and said "pretty soon your not going to have to worry about those cards because you're going to have and RFID implant chip.
My wife said, not this girl, and the receptionist (who is military) said,
YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE in YOUR BODY.
Journal of Medicine Blasts Obamacare
October 22, 2012 Obamacare will do little to address problems facing US healthcare - holding down costs and boosting the quality of care for patients.
Obamacare ignores structural problems and reimbursement of care.
Adding more people to the insurance rolls is easier than finding a way to ensure that care is effective, high-quality, and affordable for both the recipients and taxpayers.
30 million previously uninsured people may end up with coverage through new state insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansions.
But the unConstitutional individual HUGE TAX being called a mandate may instead encourage people to postpone buying insurance until they need it, because insurers will not be able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, or charge them higher rates.
Millions of Americans will be subject to the individual mandate penalties and half will simply opt to pay the tax.
Obamacare was patterned on RomneyCare and ole globalist Mitty will NOT overturn it.
Boehner to Diane Sawyer on Repealing Obamacare - "Well, I think the election changes that. It's pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare- is the law of the land. I think there are parts- of- the healthcare law that- are gonna be very difficult to implement. And very expensive. And as- the time when we're tryin' to find a way to create a path- toward a balanced budget-everything has to be on the table."
Dhimmitude and Obamacare
Dhimmitude is the muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations.
Obama used this word in his Obamacare speech.
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad.
Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States.
Folks, this is exclusively an Islamic concept under Sharia Law.
So exclusive they had to make up an English word to define the concept.
Why would our government start interjecting Sharia Law concepts into legislation like health care that would control the US population?
Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured.
Islam considers insurance to be gambling, risk-taking, and usury and is thus banned.
Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
Muslims only will have free healthcare.
And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. Revelation 9:6
LAMarzulli and others speculate the implanted chip changes peoples DNA. It actually contains Nephilim nanobots.
THIS is why if you take the mark you CANNOT enter heaven - you are polluted with demon seed. It makes perfect sense.
The RFID chip was introduced in USA on Halloween 1999 and called Digital Angel.
Rev. 13 tells us the damning, no forgiveness mark is associated with WORSHIP of the Beast.
HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME! NO IDOLS!
To depend on, put trust, faith in govt, is idolatry.
The Mark of the Beast and the implantable RFID Chip
Worldwide Human Tracking System
New World Order (NWO) plan and tools in place to track you, monitor you, and control you.
Advances in technology TODAY which are either in place, or about to be released.
The Holy Bible in Revelation 13 calls this the mark of the beast.
The apostle John could not know fully what he saw, but we are seeing it today.
The Mark of the Beast is a worldwide system that collects and gathers information, and ties it in with personal records of all kinds.
This will culminate in a chip, implanted in your body, that will personally connect you to the system.
Some say it will be a tatoo. Time will tell.
Information on where you shop and what you buy is already being collected when you use your debit card.
Even the Internet itself is part of this system.
We have become a worldwide, connected society whose every move is being tracked and cataloged. For now, its all voluntary.
The day is coming where it will be MANDATORY to implant their DNA-changing chip in your body.
Some sources said by the end of March 2013 - but today is almost the end of March.
The man of lawlessness, Antichrist, will be the one in power over the whole world.
Barak Obama is lawless and Evil, but we dont know if he is *THE* one.
Accepting that chip will mean you side with the Antrichrist, and against God.
Accepting the chip will doom your soul to Hell forever.
Whatever you do, do not ever let anyone put a chip inside your body.
It will be better to side with God and die then spend eternity in Hell.
What Is RFID? (Radio Frequency IDentification) They are nano - living chips.
Radio Frequency IDentification is an automatic data capture technology that uses tiny tracking chips affixed to products.
These tiny chips can be used to track items at a distance, through purse, backpack, or wallet.
Many companies would like to replace the bar code with these spy chips.
The Mark of the Beast is lurking in the heart of the RFID chip
Apple iPhone to Roll Out the 666 Surveillance System
UN Agenda 21
Hiding in plain sight, Giants in America
Obamacare screws Calipornia
Obamacare to double individual-market premiums.
Obamacare to increase Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146% in California.
One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own.
This problem will be worse when the main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014.
California claimed Obamacare would reduce premiums. LIE!
TRUTH is Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
In 2014 if you are a 25 year old male non-smoker buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest Obamacare plan costs an average of $184 a month.
In 2013 the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.
US producing few doctors
Under 25% of new doctors go into primary care, despite a shortage.
George Washington University professor Dr. Candice Chen said the study also found only 4.8 percent of the new primary care physicians set up shop in rural areas.
Are federally funded graduate medical education institutions meeting the need for more primary care physicians.
198 out of 759 institutions produced no rural physicians at all during the study period.
This was a Star Trek episode!
Sept 19, 2014 Now its REAL!
OBAMACARE creator wants us to DIE at 75 - Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the masterminds behind Obamacare, has now explained that he wishes to die at age 75. He said many of us live too long.
How socialism makes old people want to kill themselves